William: Next week, lawmakers
come back to Washington, D.C.,
gearing up for a busy lame duck
session before Republicans take
control of the house.
For analysis of that and more,
it is time for brooks and
Capehart.
That's New York Times columnist
David brooks and Jonathan
Capehart, associate editor for
the Washington post.
Thank you for being here.
Nice to see you.
David, I want to start with you
first.
The tragedies we saw this week,
two more mass shootings, others
we didn't even pay attention to
in the press, there was one
point where we had seven mass
shootings in seven days this
week.
We have a cultural problem, it
seems, in this country where
troubled young man feel the only
way to exoricse whatever
demons they have is to take a
gun and heard as many people as
they can.
Do you see there is any way out
of that?
David: This is obviously a
problem that is centuries in the
making and the first place.
We are a gun culture.
We have a lot of guns of this
country, too many guns in this
country, so I think that is the
primary cause of why this
happens in America more than
other places.
But it combines with another
problem that is at least decades
long, which you can call extreme
social isolation.
Tons of studies have been done
on the sort of men who do this
sort of thing, and what you find
is a culture of complete
invisibility.
They are unseen at school,
unseen around their
neighborhoods, unseen -- one
researcher said, they are not
loners, they are failed joiners.
They want to have a social life,
but for one reason or another
they cannot have it.
They have to make a choice, is
the problem me or is the prom
society?
The ones who killed aside the
problem is society, and they are
going to take it out on society.
Some of the researchers say you
should think about this as a
murder-suicide, that they have
decided to commit suicide and
they have done it in a way that
will give them what they crave,
which is recognition.
The gun itself, for someone who
feels it is a siren song, saying
you can be powerful by killing.
So they go off, and it is the
combination of a society that
does not see a lot of people
within it with a lot of guns.
William: But David is talking
about is a much harder not to
crack.
We know president Biden is
saying he wants to come back to
Washington next week in this
lame-duck session and try to get
some federal legislation passed
on gun control.
Do you think there is a chance
any of that is going to happen?
Jonathan: No.
I really wish I could say yes,
that we could get an assault
weapons ban, even a background
checks law, something that would
do something about the access to
guns.
To David's point about this
murder-suicide pact, you would
not have especially suicide if
these loan young men didn't --
lone young men didn't have the
ready access to guns they have.
I keep going back to Newtown and
the slaughter of those babies at
sandy hook elementary.
If America and its leaders could
not come together to do
something to control guns, to do
something about gun safety after
the murder of those innocent
children, then nothing will
happen.
But congress was able to do last
year is great, but as we have
seen with uvalde and Buffalo and
Colorado Springs and Virginia,
we know the problem is there.
We are not going to stop murder,
suicide, or mass shootings.
What we can do is lessen their
frequency and lessen the ability
of these people seeking
recognition, lessen their
ability to get their hands on
guns.
William: David, do you share the
pessimism that any of that is
going to get done in the
lame-duck?
And if so, what else would you
like to see the president and
the Democrats try to get done?
David: As Jonathan mentioned, we
had some not insignificant gun
legislation within the past
couple of years.
That was a pleasant surprise.
President Biden spoke about
red flagging, finding someone
who you think is potentially
dangerous and authorities would
be able to take guns away.
That would take a gigantic
culture shift in this country, a
revamping of the way we think
about privacy, a revamping of
the way we think about the
common good.
I think it would be good to not
only head off shootings, but
good to live in a society where
we cared more about each other.
I would be willing to give up
certain privacies for that to
happen.
For many Americans, that would
just be a massive cultural shift
to regard community and regard
our common good in a more
european-style.
I think it would benefit our
society in a whole range of
areas, but it is hard to see
this kind of culture change to a
society that has been pretty
individualistic for a long time.
William: Jonathan, what do you
think?
If you're pessimism holds true,
and that is just not happening,
what would you like to see the
Democrats really focus on?
Jonathan: In terms of getting
something done in the lame-duck?
Without question, they have to
do something about the debt
ceiling.
They have to do something about
keeping the government open
because it runs out of money in
the middle of December.
And there's also the ndaa, the
defense authorization bill.
Those things will probably get
mushed together.
They have to do something about
the debt ceiling because if the
global financial structure
implodes because the united
States for the first time in its
history doesn't pay its bills on
time, then all these other
things don't matter.
They will not matter.
There are other things.
There is immigration and other
things.
Senator Manchin's regulation
bill that he wants to get voted
on.
There are also things that are
on their plates.
But there is only so much time
that they have.
And let's not forget, there is a
Georgia runoff on December 6,
which is eating into the
business days that congress has
to get stuff done.
William: One of the things the
GOP leadership has said they
would consider when it takes
control of the house is to
restrict or cut off aid to
Ukraine in its fight against the
Russians.
Do you think that is a real
threat?
What they actually do that?
If so, what would that mean for
Ukraine's ability to hold the
Russians off?
David: There are some in the
Republican party who are
entertaining that idea.
I think there are more people in
the industrial complex
entertaining that idea.
I think it is unlikely the
Republican party would cut off
aid.
I think most Republicans
strongly support aid to Ukraine.
But it is an argument for doing
Ukraine aid in the lame-duck
session when there is clearly
support.
That would be number one of my
list of what could happen over
the next few months.
Just passing significant
Ukrainian aid that would carry
over to the next year.
The other thing I would add is
the electoral count act, the
reform of that, and that could
take away some loopholes trump
and others tried to capitalize
on, on January 6.
Finally, the dreamers would be
on my list.
I am not sure Jonathan mentioned
how little time there is, but
there is so much to be done.
I would like to see them cram a
little in there.
[Laughter]
William: Jonathan, one of the
other issues, speaking of this
cramped period of time, is the
final January 6 support.
We know it is apparently going
to the printers as early as next
week.
Do you think when that final
report lands, however large a
phonebook thickness it is, that
it will have some kind of weight
to it.
Will it carry more impact I
think it will --Jonathan: I
think it will.
Those hearings are effective at
weaving a narrative and showing
the American people how central
Donald Trump was to an attempted
coup against the United States
government.
What the report will show I hope
is the other webs that lead out
from Donald Trump.
What about the money?
What about the proud boys and
the oath keepers?
What about these other people
and entities that were involved
in the states?
This was not a ragtag group of
people that decided to do this.
This was orchestrated.
There is the narrative, then
there is the footnotes.
It is the footnotes where there
will be much more reporting and
context given to what
happened on January 6.
William: Do you think this will
have some weight?
The Democrats like to argue that
midterms showed people really
did care about threats to
democracy, that Biden had argued
about it and was somewhat
ridiculed for.
They said to my people really
did care.
That is the colonel of the
report.
Do you think it will land?
David: I should say that just
because I went to the university
of Chicago does not mean I am
such a nerd about footnotes.
[Laughter]
I really do think -- I was an
early skeptic of the committee,
but when you look at the
election results, it is clear
that even if people said they
did not vote on generally six,
they did vote on democracy.
There has been some criticism
the committee has been overly
trump focused.
If the account lands and we see
the tentacles, how the whole
movement was organized, I think
that would be minorly new.
It will be interesting if the
Republicans decide to
relitigate.
Will they investigate things the
Republican party wants them to
investigate like things on the
order or fentanyl two?
Or will they investigate the
things Donald Trump wants to
investigate?
And all sorts of other stuff.
I am curious what investigatory
strategy there is.
William: Before we let you go,
what do you think?
Jonathan: I think we are in a
better place to look radically
then we were a year ago.
On a personal note, we all have
rough years.
I had a rough years with three
significant debts, including
mark shields and Michael
Thurston.
I am thankful for life and the
people we get to enjoy.
William: Beautiful.
Jonathan: To that, I am thankful
for lol funny writing like this.
Shakira tells us that her hips
don't lie.
My hips are mute.
And also, there are times that
are just awkward.
Like at a nas concert when a
seven foot tall woman came up to
me and asked, what on Earth are
you doing here?
Those are the words of David
brooks in his column that is in
the paper today.
It is that kind of funny writing
that has a deeper meaning and
understanding, and understanding
is what I am thankful for as a
reader but also as an American
and has a colleague of David's.
William: So nice to see you.
Thanks for being here.
David: See you at the nas
concert, Jonathan.