It's very strange to read an article complaining about the homogenization of the cultural elite that name drops the university of every author of a book/article that supports his opinion. David Brooks himself is part of the very same cultural elite that he's complaining about.

If someone really wanted to bring about a culture with leaders drawn from different economic strata the first step should be addressing people's material needs. Parents can't help their kids if they're spending all their time working multiple jobs only to live paycheck to paycheck. It's also hard to take risks or cultivate different skills when you're saddled with college debt you can't get rid if, and when healthcare and rent are taking up a large chunk of your income. People voted for Trump because neither side is willing to do anything to actually help people. That's why people don't trust institutions or "the establishment." For all his faults, and least Trump is willing to lie to his base and promise some sort of change.

> It's very strange to read an article complaining about the homogenization of the cultural elite that name drops the university of every author of a book/article that supports his opinion.

He is in general very sloppy about this kind of thing. He famously said Obama wasn't able to fit in with working people, because you can't imagine him at an Applebee's salad bar. Well, Applebee's doesn't have a salad bar, so he was ironically outing himself as the elitist. There was also the more serious problem of fabricating claims about visiting restaurants and not being able to spend $20, something that was easily debunked.

Ivy UPENN and YALE, for the incoming pres/vp pairing. And vp's wife is also Yale. Just like the D pres husband wife team in the 90s.

Bushes, Yale. Obama, Columbia/Harvard.

> David Brooks himself is part of the very same cultural elite that he's complaining about.

Thats a strengthening of the argument, not weakening. Imagine the opposite: “he hasn’t gone there, he doesn’t understand, he’s just jealous”

> For all his faults, and least Trump is willing to lie to his base

Again, that’s a weakening of the standpoint. It’s completely backwards rationalization.

> People voted for Trump because neither side is willing to do anything to actually help people. That's why people don't trust institutions or "the establishment."

This is so much in the article that it’s arguably the entire point of it. You’re basically agreeing with it, but in a contorted contrarian way.

> It's also hard to take risks or cultivate different skills when you're saddled with college debt you can't get rid if, and when healthcare and rent are taking up a large chunk of your income.

Right, but you can only get so far with a solution that amounts to getting more kids into schools that brag about how few kids they accept. There have to be more avenues and less inbreeding/nepotism/favoritism based on brand names.

At the heart of academic movement of inclusivity sits the most entrenched and extreme form of exclusivity. This is a problem worthy of its own attention, without bringing in socioeconomic everythingism. The fact that you have tons of smart and ambitious kids coming out of non-brand-name schools unable to get their resumes looked at is a disgrace and a failure. It’s demoralizing as hell.

> For all his faults, and least Trump is willing to lie to his base and promise some sort of change

So "willing to lie" is his only redeeming trait? Poor America! That said, I think he will bring about some sort of change, but it won't be one that really benefits the people who voted for him...