🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
New York Times columnist David Brooks said he is unsure what has been achieved by the House impeachment inquiry on President Donald Trump, based on recent poll numbers in swing states showing dwindling support for impeachment.
In a recent appearance on PBS NewsHour, Brooks, a longtime columnist for the newspaper, implied there is a "big philosophical difference" between what Democrats and Trump himself see from the hearings. Brooks expressed skepticism that the "pundit class" is able to predict how the impeachment inquiry is changing voters' minds, if at all. He also claimed that many primary voters believe Democratic presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren has "poisoned herself" by touting Medicare-for-all and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg is on the rise.
Brooks said he's glad he "didn't begin [his] career in the Trump era," adding that journalists of his era, "got to see what real politics is normally like."
"I suspect Trump will see [the ongoing impeachment hearings] as a tremendous way to get to his base, and Democrats will see it the same way. And we will march forward. And eventually it will end. And then we will turn our attention the Democratic Party, and I'm not sure what will have been achieved," Brooks told PBS NewsHour host Judy Woodruff Friday.
"[T]he impeachment numbers are just like every other number in our politics, completely divided right down the middle, and with nobody moving on either side," he said. Brooks conceded that he believes "Donald Trump is in serious trouble," but was doubtful this would be exposed through the impeachment process.
The Times columnist described the political divide in how Republicans and Democrats view impeachment and said it's unfortunate that it has become a way of "damaging" Trump enough to affect the polls in November 2020.
"Are you saying that this is not about impeaching him and removing him from office by the Congress, but doing it — but damaging him enough so that it happens at the polls next November?" Woodruff asked Brooks.
"Well, that's not the way it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be a legal thing to see if he did high crimes and misdemeanors," Brooks replied.
The columnist was criticized last week for penning a piece on how "it's hard to run for national office from California or New York," citing Senator Kamala Harris' campaign difficulties. In the recent PBS NewsHour discussion, he called the "deconstruction" of her campaign "remarkable," while throwing doubt on Warren's entire 2020 run.
"I think a lot of people, at least the ones I talk to, like Elizabeth Warren. They just think she's poisoned herself with Medicare for all. And they just say, we can't go for that. So let's go for Buttigieg. And Buttigieg is doing well, just a slow, gradual rise," Brooks added.
In response to his column claiming people from the East or West coasts are unlikely to win the presidency, many of his Twitter critics pounced on Brooks last week.
"Being a David Brooks-type columnist must be the easiest job in the world. all you gotta do is churn out 800 words and make s--- up like 'you can't win the presidency without taking a swim in lake erie' or 'voters want a president who drinks IPAs' and then they pay you money," remarked Late Night with Seth Meyers writer Sal Gentile on Twitter.
About the writer
Benjamin Fearnow is a reporter based out of Newsweek's New York City offices. He was previously at CBS and Mediaite ... Read more