Does David Brooks Misread the Political Divide? Why It Matters for Communicators and Advocacy Professionals

In his recent column, Can We Please Stop Calling These People Populists?, David Brooks seeks to explain today’s political realignment and denounce the actions of the new Trump administration and DOGE, in particular. He argues that Trumpism isn’t a working-class revolt against the elites but one faction of educated elites going after another. His classification of society into an “educated class” (those with college degrees), and a “working class” (those without college degrees) oversimplifies a much more complex reality.

Is the real divide actually between workers and credentialed elites?

One of Brooks’ biggest mistakes might be in reducing people and dividing them based on their level of education. (The larger issue I argue later, is that people are more than just two reduced categories).

Perhaps the real distinction he’s missing is between those who view themselves as “producers” v. “pontificators.” Perhaps people identify between those who produce tangible value in the form of goods and services, regardless of education or income level, from those they see as valuing credentials and who analyze, regulate, and study the world but don’t necessarily build, create, or produce goods or services traded in society.

I don’t think people resent education or the educated. They resent academic observers and pontificators who have built entire industries, nonprofits, NGOs, think tanks, and other institutions pushing papers, issuing reports, and theorizing about how everyone else should live their lives.

Meanwhile, these observers sit in their institutions and look down on the entrepreneurs, the business owners, the laborers, the self-taught experts, the blue-collar workers, the tech innovators. The disdain is easily felt by many.

The distrust in institutions has grown remarkably in the last few years. For decades there have been debates about government waste and efficiency, recognizing that bloated bureaucracies hold many well-paid, credentialed elites. And we've all been front row to the debates on mounting student loan debt from the credentialing institutions. Many of these students are now challenged to secure jobs that justify their loans and choices in degrees. Many have been steered toward "better credentials" over alternative educational, apprenticeship, and workforce paths that would have provided much better career prospects and security.

The very places the administration seeks to disrupt are these institutions, who many insulated from reality and holding unchecked, unaccountable power.

Messaging Today: Can We Stop Reducing People?

But despite everything I said above, I believe the real opportunity is for us to do better in our messaging and resist the urge to reduce people into a narrow categorization to fit narratives. People, societies, communities, and organizations are complex and fluid. Fortunately, many of us are continual learners and can evolve as we learn and grow. So rather than focusing on identities and identity reduction, encourage values-based messaging. Be a leader in more constructive ways to communicate rather than alienating and dividing.

As communicators, we must understand people, their realities, their values,?their contradictions, and their complexities and communicate in a way that resonates and not alienates. I encourage everyone to move beyond labels and connect with people, seeking to understand and to learn, rather than put them in a box.

An Invitation to Rethink Together

My reactions and thinking in this article have not been deeply studied and peer-reviewed. I just felt deeply from my experiences that Mr. Brooks was missing something big and alienating people. I hope we can move beyond that.?

I recognize that I don’t have all of the answers and am encouraged to continually think through these very questions and assumptions in my day-to-day work with clients and my interactions with friends and family. Our understanding should be constantly evolving. If we want to communicate better, we have to be willing to question not just the narratives imposed on us, but the ones we impose on others. That includes me.

So I leave this not as a conclusion, but as an invitation: How can we be better at framing these conversations? How do we best message policy positions? How do we become better advocates? How do we move beyond labels to truly understand people?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

This article is written in response to a NYT opinion column by David Brooks shared by my local media outlet, WRAL. Here is the link: https://www.wral.com/story/david-brooks-can-we-please-stop-calling-these-people-populists/21862865/