Mia Farrow's reposts David Brooks' on Bluesky

[red dog 1]

David Brooks:

‘Will enough Americans rise up to reverse the tide of populist authoritarianism? The Filipinos did it under Marcos. One morning the autocrats woke up and were no longer in control; the marchers were. That needs to happen here. ‘

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...

— Mia Farrow (@miafarrow.bsky.social) 2025-10-14T14:55:08.173Z

[lame54]

1. David. The problem is...

People tuned you out years ago for being a republican fool

[elleng]

3. Only foolish people tuned him out 'years ago.' He (as do many) changes and grows.

[lame54]

4. He helped create this but...

Pretends he didn't

[red dog 1]

6. Did you click on the link and read the Atlantic article?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Compassionate Conservatism is infinitely more paltable than MAGA.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Not only has he mellowed some, but the key is that intelligent thoughtful people can make us think.

Thinking is the key, like William F. Buckley could make us think.

That is why it is important to read and hear the intelligent people on all sides. The thinking might leave us still convinced of our positions, but with greater understanding of them and of the opposition.

Understanding is the key to knowing what to do and how to do it.

[elleng]

8. Thanks

[Bev54]

17. The problem is that people don't read anymore, unless it is in a meme.

Only those truly interested will read the full article and less and less people seem to really be tuned in

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. But WE read. WE are reading it. Some among us attack us for reading it and thinking about it. How dare we! . . . . nt

[Hekate]

31. Thanks, Bernardo

[nycbos]

2. And aren't the Marcos back?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Isn't tRump back?

So? Give up?

History is informative but no determinative. You get to determine your own actions. The range of actions is often narrower than we'd like but we choose among them.

Brooks' and Marcos' and tRump's past does not falsify the key point in the OP: sustained united large scale popular action is what is needed and what works.

[red dog 1]

9. Yes, they are. The current president of the Philippines is the son of Ferdinand Marcos.

However, this David Brooks' article, (which is only a part of the much larger "The Unfinished Revolution" in The Atlantic Magazine) only mentions Marcos in passing, as an example of how a tyrant can be overthrown.

(The article is quite lengthy, but well worth reading)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I've been to the Philippines. My partner is from there. I was there for Christmas.

Bong Bong is nothing like his father. He's more like a center-left American politician. Unfortunately he was popular but no longer is. Sadly a lot of Filipinos like America long for a strongman.

[maspaha]

10. Ugh...sweet f-ing lisa marie...

…agreeing with Karl Rove & MTG wasn’t enough…now I’m agreeing with David Brooks

He!!’s freezing over next

[Celerity]

11. Mia Farrow self-owns. (Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. is the current President of the Philippines)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. That doesn't invalidate Brooks' (Farrow's) point. There are two phases.

Phase 1: Get rid of the unwanted autocracy.

Phase 2: Keep autocracy out.

US and Philippines failed at Phase 2, which puts us back in Phase 1. Mass action got Marcos out in the first place and to some extent likewise for US in 2020. Now it is needed more than ever.

[Celerity]

25. It was a poor, poor example. nt

[red dog 1]

38. "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water"

Have you read the entire article?
In the 2nd paragraph, David Brooks poses a very important question: "Will enough Americans rise up to reverse the tide of populist authoritarianism?
He then answers his own question with "The Filipinos did it under Marcos," which is true, despite the fact that now, 40 years later, his son, Bongbong is the president, as you've pointed out.

Perhaps it would have been better if Mia Farrow had posted the title of the article, instead of quoting from the 2nd paragraph.
"AMERICA NEEDS A MASS MOVEMENT --- NOW
Without one, America may sink into autocracy for decades,"

Marcos or no Marcos, this article is important....period!

[Gaugamela]

12. Brooks has a "no atheist in a foxhole" epiphany and runs

to the left yelling “wake up, wake up”!

[William Seger]

13. It's a pet peeve of mine, but "right-wing populist" is an oxymoron

... at least, by the historic meaning of those terms. A "populist" is (or was) someone who sees politics as a struggle between the common people (the populace) and the elites (the rich and powerful) and promotes the best interests of the populace. A "right-winger" was originally the label given to Frenchmen after the French Revolution who wanted to continue with a monarchy and its privileged class — they just wanted a different king — rather than a democracy.

On the other hand, a right-wing demagogue will typically try to gather political support from the populace by appealing to their fears, prejudices, and resentments, promising to make everything better by returning to an imaginary previous glory, typically including retribution for a scapegoat ethnic group that it claims is harming society, but in reality, they support a stratified a society with an authoritarian leader who supports an oligarchy class. They are overwhelmingly "reactionary" (knee-jerk anti-liberal) which isn't really the same thing as "conservative."

My problem with calling these demagogues populists means we don't have a good word for the original meaning.

[Hekate]

30. IIRC, populist movements are inherently neither left nor right. They take on the coloration of their current leaders.

[William Seger]

34. I can agree with that, but I don't call them populists unless they actually oppose the oligarchs

... and authoritarianism, champion the common people and actually work for their betterment. Talking the talk isn't good enough: Right-wingers worship the wealthy oligarchy (because they actually are oligarchs or imagine they will be), they believe authoritarianism is necessary to keep the rabble under control, and they hate common people who are from the wrong tribes. "Right-wing populism" is a fraud because they just exploit the populace.

[Hekate]

32. Populists and Progressives were in alliance at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century

The second task is to construct a vision of America that is more inspiring than MAGA’s. Roughly 125 years ago, when the Declaration was half as old as it is now, America was struggling to cope with the Industrial Revolution. The 1880s witnessed the vicious depression of 1882–85, massive political corruption, astounding concentrations of corporate power, huge inequality, and lynchings and other racial terrorism. Americans responded by building the Populist Progressive movement.

Today, populists and progressives generally occupy opposing political parties. But as Richard Hofstadter noted in his classic The Age of Reform, at the turn of the 20th century Populists and Progressives formed an alliance. The Progressives of that era, then as now, were concentrated in the highly educated neighborhoods of big cities. The Populists, then as now, were concentrated in the smaller towns of the Midwest and the South. But both the Progressives and the Populists wanted to help those who were being ground down by industrialization. Both emphasized moral reform, personal responsibility, and character formation. Both believed in using government to reduce inequality and expand opportunity. Populists and Progressives worked hard to keep rural and urban insurgencies in harmony. Together, they built big things—the antitrust movement, the FDA, the Forest Service, the Federal Reserve.

Populists and Progressives needed each other—and still do. Without populists, progressives can turn into a bunch of affluent, out-of-touch urbanites who have little in common with regular Americans. Without progressives, populists can turn into anti-intellectual, paranoid bigots. The progressive valorizing of cultural diversity is balanced by populists’ emphasis on cultural cohesion.

[chowder66]

14. So we need roughly 2 million people to protest for 3 days. Then if we take back the power we need

to make new laws and/or run non-stop campaigns against disinformation/propaganda.

[Hekate]

33. The Philippines had about 42 million people in 1980, versus 342 million Americans in 2025

How many people would we have to get into the streets at once to equal their 2 million?

A bit under 5% of their population then

We’d have to do 17.5 million Americans

[chowder66]

35. It was mostly held in metro Manila.

The People Power Revolution, also known as the EDSA Revolution[a] or the February Revolution,[4][5][6][7] were a series of popular demonstrations in the Philippines, mostly in Metro Manila, from February 22 to 25, 1986. There was a sustained campaign of civil resistance against regime violence and electoral fraud. The nonviolent revolution led to the departure of Ferdinand Marcos, the end of his 20-year dictatorship and the restoration of democracy in the Philippines.

The majority of the demonstrations took place on a long stretch of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, more commonly known by its acronym EDSA, in Metro Manila from February 22 to 25, 1986. They involved over two million Filipino civilians, as well as several political and military groups, and religious groups led by Cardinal Jaime Sin, the Archbishop of Manila, along with Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines President Cardinal Ricardo Vidal, the Archbishop of Cebu. It is remembered as a "Rosary miracle" in the peaceful victory.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution

Metro Manila had a population at a little over 7 million
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/22109/manila/population

Metro Manila is a little more than double now. D.C. hasn't seen 2 million (maybe even 1 million depending on the source) and they haven't seen a protest at that level sustained for 3 days so I think it could be significant even at that level.

[Hekate]

36. Possibly I need to clarify. In order to reach a proportionate number of people, America needs a lot more than 2million

It’s fairly simple. I hope we manage to do it.

Coming to the rallies on Saturday? See ya there.

[Exp]

16. The "IRC", the Interconnected Resistance Coalition. I like it. I'll sign up! We'll do coordinated boycotts, general

strikes, walk-outs, marches, and whatever takes down the fascists.

[2na fisherman]

18. The enemy of my enemy is my friend

Don't dismiss Brooks so fast. If we are going to survive Trumpism, we need all the help we can get. And building coalitions with some "woke Republicans" and Independents can make a difference between solving this crisis or continuing an endless cycle of Us vs Them battles. Remember Trump wants us to be divided so it will be easier to quash dissent. Every person who lives here has a stake in this. And not only that, the entire international community may have a say in what goes on here because those nation's are now , and will be, threatened too--if not militarily, certainly by an economic ruin continued by Trump.

[red dog 1]

37. +1

[Joinfortmill]

20. Yup.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

22. Republicans need to be barred from Independence Day celebrations until they renounce trumpism.

Their fear is beyond the pale. Their feeding lies to the public is extremely dangerous.
They're traitors. And they don't care.

[Paladin]

24. David Brooks, way late as usual.

He has a lot of company, there at the New York Times opinion section---non-stop trashing of Democrats in general and Joe Biden in particular, while never missing a chance to cut trump some slack. Unforgivable.

[Skittles]

27. I agree

so sick of Dems (as with women / POC) having to be twice as good to be thought of as half as good

ENOUGH ALREADY

[Skittles]

26. I loves me some Mia

[Justice Brandeis]

28. A lot of you won't want to hear this. So saddle up.

We permit uneducated people without college degrees or civic education to vote in this country, and that is a problem, and that produces someone like Trump.

Sorry to burst your balloon if you don't like hearing that.

[Hekate]

29. Here's the meat of it, and he is not wrong...

This copied over as a single overlong paragraph, so I broke it up & if it comes out to more than 4 paras, that’s why.

But a second reason people are quiescent is that they don’t understand the fight we are in. They’re still thinking in conventional political terms. This crisis is not about election cycles. It’s about historical tides.

Every so often, a political-cultural-social tide sweeps the world, leaving everything rearranged in its wake. Two hundred and fifty years ago, the democratic tide swept across the West, producing the American and French Revolutions and eventually the democratic revolts of 1848. The totalitarian tide of the early 20th century produced revolutions in Russia, Germany, and China. The 1960s gave us the tide of liberation, which produced the decolonization movements, the civil-rights movement, and the feminist movement. The neoliberal revolution of the 1980s and ’90s produced Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the West and Deng Xiaoping and Mikhail Gorbachev in the East.

Since 2010 or so, the tide of global populism has risen, a movement that has brought us not just Trump, but Viktor Orbán, Narendra Modi, the revanchist version of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Brexit. (This echoes my observation in Trump’s first term: he was not alone, it was worldwide)

Drowning in this historic tide, conventional parties and politicians, whose time horizon doesn’t stretch past the next election, are hapless. Conventional politicians don’t have the vision or power to reverse a historical tide. Chuck Schumer is not going to save us.