Anger Over the Destruction of American Values
'How to Make a Mild Guy Really Angry,' by David Brooks (column, May 30), struck a deep chord. His outrage is justified.
The reduction of patriotism to mere tribal loyalty and the denial of the idea that soldiers might fight for ideals are not only historically inaccurate but also morally corrosive. Mr. Brooks rightly calls this what it is: an attempt to reject the better angels of our national character.
If the current administration wishes to recover a sense of moral clarity, it might begin by revisiting the rich tradition of Catholic social teaching. Pope Francis often reminded us that authentic social peace cannot be built on exclusion or the idolization of the homeland, but only through a love that seeks the good of others. Human dignity is not earned by group membership or ancestry; it is universal and inviolable, and must be the foundation of all political action.
When leaders traffic in dehumanizing language or policies, they not only stain the office they hold — they also cheapen the very ideals that generations of Americans have fought and died to uphold. America is indeed a homeland. But as Mr. Brooks reminds us, it is also an idea. And without that idea — of liberty, justice and equal dignity for all — we become just another tribe with flags.
Robert StewartChantilly, Va.
To the Editor:
David Brooks's anger over the destruction of American values is felt by many who are demonstrating on our streets and filling town hall meetings. But if we are to reverse the terrible moral condition of the United States, we must accept that the American people are responsible for it.
The American people elected Donald Trump and the MAGA majority in Congress, and by doing so eliminated historical national values such as democracy, compassion and concern for the national good, replacing them with individualism, grievance, presidential corruption and tribal dominance.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
a minute ago
- Fast Company
Newsmax agrees to pay $67 million in defamation case over false 2020 election claims
The conservative network Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of defaming a voting equipment company by spreading lies about President Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, according to documents filed Monday. The settlement comes after Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million to settle a similar lawsuit in 2023 and Newsmax paid what court papers describe as $40 million to settle a libel lawsuit from a different voting machine manufacturer, Smartmatic, which also was a target of pro-Trump conspiracy theories on the network. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had ruled earlier that Newsmax did indeed defame Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems by airing false information about the company and its equipment. But Davis left it to a jury to eventually decide whether that was done with malice, and, if so, how much Dominion deserved from Newsmax in damages. Newsmax and Dominion reached the settlement before the trial could take place. The settlement was disclosed by Newsmax on Monday in a new filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It said the deal was reached Friday. A spokesperson for Dominion said the company was pleased to have settled the lawsuit. The disclosure came as Trump, who lost his 2020 reelection bid to Democrat Joe Biden, vowed in a social media post Monday to eliminate mail-in ballots and voting machines such as those supplied by Dominion and other companies. It was unclear how the Republican president could achieve that. The same judge also handled the Dominion-Fox News case and made a similar ruling that the network repeated numerous lies by Trump's allies about his 2020 loss despite internal communications showing Fox officials knew the claims were bogus. At the time, Davis found it was 'CRYSTAL clear' that none of the allegations was true. Internal correspondence from Newsmax officials likewise shows they knew the claims were baseless. 'How long are we going to play along with election fraud?' Newsmax host Bob Sellers said two days after the 2020 election was called for Biden, according to internal documents revealed as part of the case. Newsmax took pride that it was not calling the election for Biden and, the internal documents show, saw a business opportunity in catering to viewers who believed Trump won. Private communications that surfaced as part of Dominion's earlier defamation case against Fox News also revealed how the network's business interests intersected with decisions it made related to coverage of Trump's 2020 election claims. At Newsmax, employees repeatedly warned against false allegations from pro-Trump guests such as attorney Sidney Powell, according to documents in the lawsuit. In one text, even Newsmax owner Chris Ruddy, a Trump ally, said he found it 'scary' that Trump was meeting with Powell. Dominion was at the heart of many of the wild claims aired by guests on Newsmax and elsewhere, who promoted a conspiracy theory involving deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to rig the machines for Biden. Though Trump has insisted his fraud claims are real, there's no evidence they were, and the lawsuits in the Fox and Newsmax cases show how some of the president's biggest supporters knew they were false at the time. Trump's then-attorney general, William Barr, said there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump and his backers lost dozens of lawsuits alleging fraud, some before Trump-appointed judges. Numerous recounts, reviews and audits of the election results, including some run by Republicans, turned up no signs of significant wrongdoing or error and affirmed Biden's win. After returning to office, Trump pardoned those who tried to halt the transfer of power during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and directed his Department of Justice to investigate Chris Krebs, a former Trump cybersecurity appointee who had vouched for the security and accuracy of the 2020 election. As an initial trial date approached in the Dominion case earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order attacking the law firm that litigated it and the Fox case, Susman Godfrey. The order, part of a series targeting law firms Trump has tussled with, cited Susman Godfrey's work on elections and said the government would not do business with any of its clients or permit any of its staff in federal buildings. A federal judge put that action on hold, saying the framers would view it as 'a shocking abuse of power. '
Gizmodo
a minute ago
- Gizmodo
Despite Online MAGA Freakout About Her Jeans, Sydney Sweeney's New Movie Bombs
A couple of weeks ago, American Eagle launched a new ad campaign for its blue jeans line that featured actress Sydney Sweeney. In one of the ads, Sweeney weirdly broached the topic of genetics (she said, and I quote: 'genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality and even eye color. My jeans are blue'), but, for the most part, the ads seems to be about how great Sweeney's posterior looks when she's wearing the company's denim. Not long after the jeans ads aired, the internet collectively lost its mind. One TikToker compared the ad to 'Nazi propaganda' and, soon, NPR had dubbed it the 'ad campaign that launched a thousand critiques.' CNN asked what America had 'learned' from the Sweeney 'situation.' Vox used the episode to wax eloquent about the 'unsettling legacy of the blonde bombshell.' Dr. Phil and Lizzo both got upset—for different reasons—and America's president, in a move that was very on-brand for him, issued a mispelling-strewn statement calling 'Sidney' the 'HOTTEST.' Meanwhile, a number of high-profile MAGA folks (including J.D. Vance, Charlie Kirk, and Ted Cruz) attempted to commandeer the topic, and use it to engineer a backlash to the supposed backlash to Sweeney's ads. Meanwhile, Rolling Stone magazine unveiled a timeline of America's conservatives efforts to 'claim' Sweeney for themselves as a cultural icon. Based on the national conversation we were all just forced to have about Sweeney and her jeans, one would've thought MAGA's collective lust for Sweeney could have easily been translated into hefty box office numbers for her newest movie, Americana. After all, if middle America is now collectively salivating over Sweeney, wouldn't they want to go see her every chance they get? Apparently that's not how things worked out, however. Sweeney's new movie only garnered some $500,000 during its opening weekend, The Hollywood Reporter has noted. Film critics have been lukewarm to positive about the film, with Vulture calling it 'a '90s-style ensemble crime movie that engages in a sly exploration of the iconography and mythology we use to define the country' and noting that the film is not 'particularly political' but that it is 'blessed with a fairly strong cast.' However, Americana's real problem would appear to be less the fact that its lead actress's brand endorsements have stirred up controversy and more about the fact that most people haven't heard of it. I go to the movies a lot, and am generally aware of the upcoming developments at my local cinema, and I can't say that I'd even seen an ad for Americana or heard much about it prior to writing this article. The movie's ad, which seems to offer a run-of-the-mill comedic crime romp, doesn't have much of a partisan bent. The internet is not a real place, but not infrequently, through a kind of alchemical magic, it can produce real-world events. Sometimes the web can stir up so much ideological turmoil that it spills offline and into the real world (just look at January 6th, if you need an example). The problem is that no one really cared that deeply about the American Eagle ad in the first place. A few pissed off leftist people online and a gaggle of MAGA commentators attempted to get everyone to care about it, and the news media carried the story into our collective consciousness, if only to have something somewhat entertaining to write about instead of the incessant horrors visited upon us daily by the Trump administration. For Fox News, it was a way to avoid talking about the incessant horrors visited upon us daily by the Trump administration, in a different way. Still, despite the best efforts of a select few to make the Great Jeans War of 2025 happen, America's heart just wasn't in it. A recent poll from The Economist/YouGov showed only 12 percent of Americans found the ad 'offensive.' We've been through a solid half-decade of having our minds messed with by the Extremely Online, and America may have completely exhausted its moral panics.
Associated Press
2 minutes ago
- Associated Press
US Attorney Jay Clayton approved by judges to remain as top prosecutor in New York
NEW YORK (AP) — The judges of the Southern District of New York approved Jay Clayton on Monday to remain as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan. The outcome was announced in a release by Southern District Executive Edward Friedland. It said he will serve as U.S. attorney unless someone else is nominated by President Donald Trump and approved by the Senate. Clayton, who served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission between 2017 and 2020, has deep-rooted Wall Street ties and over two decades of experience at a prominent international law firm, although he never was a prosecutor before taking the position four months ago. The approval came after several other U.S. attorneys across the country who were appointed by the Trump administration were unable to gain the approval of judges in their districts. The Manhattan prosecutor's office has undergone turmoil in recent months after several prosecutors, including then interim U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, resigned after refusing to carry out orders from the Justice Department to drop corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams. The case was eventually dropped after prosecutors from Washington submitted a request to a judge. Another assistant U.S. attorney, Maurene Comey, was recently fired shortly after she handled the bulk of duties in the trial of hip-hop producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs. He was acquitted of the most serious racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking charges, though he remains jailed and awaiting sentencing for his conviction on prostitution-related charges. Clayton has maintained a relatively low profile while heading an office of prosecutors long known for its independence from Washington. The decision on Clayton came after judges in several other federal jurisdictions across the country rejected the person chosen by the Trump administration as U.S. attorney, causing the administration to employ other legal maneuvers to keep its pick in place. The administration's appointments normally would face Senate approval, but Democratic senators in their home states can block the usual process, as several have done. That lets the appointed top prosecutor serve 120 days before the district's federal judges decide whether the individual can remain in the post. The judges can also appoint a successor. In the past, it was considered rare for judges to reject the appointed top prosecutor in their district, but several rejections have occurred this year. In the Northern District of New York, which encompasses 32 counties in upstate New York and includes the cities of Albany, Binghamton and Syracuse, judges rejected the appointment of John A. Sarcone III. The administration then appointed him as the special attorney to the attorney general, enabling him to continue in his role as U.S. attorney even though he doesn't directly carry that title. In New Jersey, federal judges rejected the appointment of former Trump defense attorney Alina Habba, choosing an interim top federal prosecutor in the state instead. Attorney General Pam Bondi responded by firing the judges' chosen successor and reinstalling Habba as acting U.S. attorney. Habba's tenure still faces uncertainty, though, after a lawsuit challenging the legality of the administration's move to keep her in place awaited a ruling this week by a Pennsylvania federal judge. The Justice Department says the president is entitled to name the person he wants to the position. Unlike Clayton, who has remained relatively controversy free in the runup to the judges' vote, Sarcone and Habba attracted headlines during their tenures. In June, Sarcone said he was attacked by a knife-wielding man from El Salvador outside an Albany hotel. The man, who lacked documentation to be in the country, was initially charged with attempted second-degree murder, but prosecutors downgraded the charge after reviewing video surveillance footage and the man pleaded guilty to menacing. Habba brought a rare federal criminal case against a sitting member of Congress for allegations other than fraud or corruption when U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver was charged with assault for allegedly making physical contact with law enforcement officials when Newark's mayor was arrested during a chaotic visit to a privately operated immigration detention center in the state's largest city. McIver denied assaulting anyone. Habba has also launched an investigation into New Jersey's Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, and attorney general, Matt Platkin, over the state's directive barring local law enforcement from cooperating with federal agents conducting immigration enforcement. The administration has run into similar troubles elsewhere in the country. Two others who have been able to remain serving in roles as top federal prosecutors without approval from the Senate or judges in their districts are Bilal 'Bill' Essayli in Los Angeles and Sigal Chattah in Nevada. ___ Associated Press Writer Mike Catalini contributed to this report.
