ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:
The issues lifted by a events in Ferguson are also a starting indicate for a Friday domestic commentators. Joining me are columnist David Brooks of a New York Times and sitting in for E.J, Dionne this week Jonathan Capehart who’s on a editorial house of a Washington Post. Welcome to both of you.
DAVID BROOKS: Good to be here.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Good to be here.
SIEGEL: David let’s start with you. This Ferguson story is about competition relations, it’s about allegations of fatal troops brutality, it’s about troops tactics. The President, a Attorney General, a administrator of Missouri have all weighed in. What do we take divided from all this so far?
BROOKS: Well, I’m partial of a bipartisan carol that a troops over reacted. we theory we start from a communitarian perspective. You know, conservatives do trust in law and sequence yet a troops force is ostensible to emerge out of a village and be partial of a community. And what happened in Ferguson was that it used to be a mostly white village and now it’s a – there was a demographic change and it became a mostly African-American village and a troops force didn’t simulate a change – a city that they were indeed policing. So, that was a core of a problem. That we had this informative eminence between a troops force and a village and that’s firm to be huffy in a initial place. So, a initial problem was not carrying a troops force that reflected a community. And afterwards a thought of adopting tactics, we know, a troops should be unequivocally tighten to people, generally in times of turmoil, not manufacture fundamentally troops barriers. And so it was not usually a defilement of simple village policing it was a basic, how we do law and order.
SIEGEL: Jonathan Capehart, what did we make of all this?
CAPEHART: Well, we would contend in serve to a troops not reflecting a community, a troops didn’t simulate America in a ideals. What we saw in a vital bedrooms or on a tablets or on computers, was we saw leisure of a press, leisure of assembly, leisure to reason open officials accountable underneath attack. And we consider for a lot of people to see what was function in Ferguson – Ferguson, Missouri was something that was deeply unfortunate and that a overpower from inaugurated officials during that moment, Wednesday night, from a administrator on down was also something that we consider people found disturbing.
SIEGEL: Well, we know, David talked about how a troops contingency simulate a village and given demographic shifts, in practice, that means there have to be recruitment campaigns, certain movement and these are not always – they’re not noncontroversial things.
CAPEHART: Right, they’re not noncontroversial yet we see a outcome of not doing something proactively to have troops army simulate a village that they serve. What’s function in Ferguson is a outcome of that.
BROOKS: Also usually a emanate of sparse power. We’ve all been on a wrong side of somebody in uniform who uses sparse energy in an repulsive way. And this was that on large scale. And there’s a reason…
SIEGEL: And we’re not even articulate of murdering a Michael Brown now, you’re articulate about the…
BROOKS: Well, we don’t know. we don’t know.
SIEGEL: … you’re articulate about what happened to the…
BROOKS: we consider there was substantially a small of that and a small most when a murdering too. But there is just, when we have some sparse management over people there’s a bent in somehow a tellurian breast to be a oppressive. And we consider that might be a thesis in this story from start to finish.
SIEGEL: OK, let’s pierce onto another large domestic story this week. Hillary Clinton gave an talk to Jeffrey Goldberg of a Atlantic and by a finish of it she’d left some illumination between herself and President Obama on involvement in Syria. A small on Gaza, on a chief talks with Iran and on articulating a element of unfamiliar policy. Jonathan do we hear a – all that is credentials for 2016 and Hillary Clinton observant if I’m President it won’t be a third Obama administration?
CAPEHART: Well, demeanour either a former senator, former Secretary of State runs is a doubt she’ll have to answer by a finish of this year yet it’s not out of a typical for her to make famous in her book and in interviews that she and a boss differed on policy. That’s to be expect. we consider a debate that’s blown adult of late is partial of what happens when your hawking a book and we wish people to review a book and if you’re reading a book we won’t be astounded that there are differences between a two. Remember a 2008 campaign, their worldviews were unequivocally opposite in how they would go about things. So anyone who’s astounded by what she’s observant now unequivocally shouldn’t be.
SIEGEL: David, Jonathan’s saying this as a mostly literary problem. You see it as a small bit some-more domestic than that.
BROOKS: Yeah, no, I’m in preference of saying all as a literary problem. We’re all prisoners of a poetry style. But what we do consider is some-more of an egghead problem. As Jonathan said, these were – these dual people when they were in a Senate had unequivocally opposite views. Hillary Clinton emerges unequivocally from a Truman, Kennedy – John F. Kennedy propagandize of Democratic foreign-policy. That as prolonged as America exists and history’s ongoing there are going to be ideological enemies. And troops force is mostly useful in that. President Obama’s most some-more cautious. It’s not usually Hillary, it’s a people around Hillary, who had cooking parties for a past months have been utterly dismissive of a Obama unfamiliar policy. And so this is a broader egghead quarrel and it was exacerbated by a Syria dispute. we consider Hillary’s preference or during slightest advocating for a thought of defending Syrian moderates has been entirely irreproachable by events. And she has a right to feel that if her legislature had been taken, we’d be in a most improved place in Syria and Iraq.
SIEGEL: You determine with that Jonathan?
CAPEHART: we have no evidence with Mr. Brooks on that.
SIEGEL: But, we know, we’ve spent so most time here over a years – over a past integrate of years articulate about groups within a Republican Party. Are there still these low groups within a Democratic Party. Between people who are out-of-date Democratic care Council, don’t consider all Democrats are doves kind of Democrat and people who are not usually of opposite policies, like President Obama, yet younger than that?
CAPEHART: Well, we meant as we saw in a final campaign, remember it was Senator – afterwards Senator Clinton who voted to sanction a Iraq fight and that was a big…
SIEGEL: As David Axelrod reminded her of.
CAPEHART: Yes, on Twitter. That was a large crowd within a Democratic Party and it’s something that gave afterwards Senator Obama an corner over Clinton. It’ll be engaging to see in 2016, if indeed she runs, how she – how she’ll refinement what happened with a Iraq fight vote. But also that interventionist style, how are we going to lead a nation that doesn’t wish to get concerned anywhere, get them to support some – support a claimant who unequivocally believes in an interventionist
SIEGEL: You can suppose her running, David, as someone who pronounced we contingency be some-more prepared to meddle in a world?
BROOKS: That’s what she believes. That’s what she always believed. we do trust it will means her problems in a primary process, yet assistance her in a general.
SIEGEL: David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, interjection to both of you.
BROOKS: Thank you.
CAPEHART: Thank you.
NPR transcripts are combined on a rush deadline by a executive for NPR, and correctness and accessibility might vary. This content might not be in a final form and might be updated or revised in a future. Please be wakeful that a lawful record of NPR’s programming is a audio.