It’s not every day that a metaphor from the trenches of World War I sets off a political firestorm in the twenty-first century. But last week, that’s exactly what happened when New York Times columnist David Brooks made a controversial comparison on PBS NewsHour, sparking heated debate across the political spectrum and igniting a fresh wave of scrutiny over America’s long-running battle with gerrymandering.
On August 15, 2025, California Democrats unveiled a newly redrawn congressional district map. Their stated aim? To, in the words of California Governor Gavin Newsom, “neuter and neutralize what is happening in Texas.” The move was widely seen as a direct response to recent redistricting efforts in Texas, which have been supported by former President Donald Trump. The stage was set for a national conversation about the fairness—and the future—of political mapmaking in the United States.
Enter David Brooks. During his regular Friday appearance on PBS NewsHour, Brooks didn’t mince words. Drawing on a grim chapter from the past, he said, “Let’s do a little ethical experiment here. In World War I, the Germans used mustard gas on civilians, and it helped them. Do you then decide, okay, we’re gonna use mustard gas on civilians? What Trump ordered Abbott to do in Texas is mustard gas on our democracy.” According to Brooks, the analogy was meant to highlight what he sees as the corrosive effect of partisan redistricting—no matter which side is doing it.
Brooks continued, “Some people would feel, okay, that was terrible, we have to fight back… It’s horrible, but we’re gonna fight back because that’s war. Gavin Newsom is leaping into this with both legs. And to me, there’s a moral stain that will accompany anybody who does this. Because basically, they are destroying our democracy. You don’t let politicians pick voters; you let voters pick politicians. And the people who oppose gerrymandering, they’re the ones defending democracy.”
It didn’t take long for the reaction to Brooks’ remarks to ripple outward. Social media lit up almost instantly, with users from all sides weighing in. Some, like @TaboohBKT, challenged the premise that Republicans are uniquely responsible for gerrymandering: “Do they really think the American people can’t just look up the states and the representation numbers and do the math on which party does more gerrymandering? It is not the Republicans.” Others, such as @msmarcijoy, lamented what they saw as increasingly extreme rhetoric, writing, “As they continue to lose ground, their rhetoric has become more unhinged and transparent.”
The backlash wasn’t limited to social media. Critics questioned the appropriateness of Brooks’ World War I analogy, with some arguing that it trivialized the horrors of chemical warfare for the sake of political point-scoring. “Their hyperbole is off the charts,” one user commented, while another quipped, “The sky is falling, again.” For many, the comparison was a bridge too far, fueling cynicism about the tenor of today’s political discourse.
Yet, for all the controversy, Brooks was hardly alone in his concern about the trajectory of American democracy. During the same PBS segment, political analyst and MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart weighed in, suggesting there were important differences between red and blue states’ approaches to redistricting. Capehart noted that, while Texas Republicans had provided an opportunity for public comment, California’s Democrats had placed their measure directly on the ballot, allowing voters to weigh in. This nuance, Capehart suggested, mattered greatly in assessing the democratic legitimacy of the process.
Brooks, however, remained unswayed. He warned, “What’s gonna happen is that we’re gonna have a race to the bottom, where it’s in the middle of—and I fully grant you that Trump started it, so I’m not saying it’s totally morally equivalent—but there’s a moral stain, and what’s gonna happen is people are gonna say, it’s those politicians.” He predicted a growing loss of faith in the system, cautioning, “Loss of faith in the system, loss of faith in democracy, and literally less democracy. Because if you are a Texas voter or a California voter, or if New York does it or Missouri does it, all the states that are going to do this, you are literally disenfranchising people because you can pick the district so carefully that the voters don’t matter so much.”
For many Americans, the term “gerrymandering” conjures up images of twisted, nonsensical district lines and backroom deals. The practice—named after Elbridge Gerry, a founding father who first signed off on a contorted Massachusetts district in 1812—has been a fixture of U.S. politics for over two centuries. Both major parties have engaged in it when given the chance, often to the detriment of competitive elections and, critics argue, the principle of government by the people.
In recent years, the stakes have only grown higher. With each new census, states redraw their congressional maps, and the party in power often seizes the opportunity to cement its advantage. Texas, under Republican leadership, has been accused of crafting districts that dilute the voting power of Democratic-leaning communities. Now, California’s Democratic-controlled legislature has responded in kind, seeking to counterbalance what they see as unfairness elsewhere.
Not everyone agrees with the doom-and-gloom assessments. Some observers argue that, for all its flaws, gerrymandering is as American as apple pie—a tool that both parties have used since the earliest days of the republic. Others insist that recent efforts to create independent redistricting commissions in some states offer a glimmer of hope, promising a more transparent and equitable process. Still, as Brooks and others see it, the arms race continues, with each side justifying its actions as a necessary defense against the other.
The broader public, meanwhile, is left to watch the spectacle unfold. As one social media user put it, “There is something very wrong with these people.” The frustration is palpable, with many Americans feeling caught in the crossfire of partisan warfare. “Trump started it? Have you seen IL, MA, and other blue states? GTFO,” another user wrote, highlighting the widespread perception that both sides are guilty of manipulating the rules to their own advantage.
For all the heated rhetoric and historical analogies, the core question remains: Who gets to pick whom in American democracy? Brooks is adamant: “You don’t let politicians pick voters; you let voters pick politicians.” It’s a principle as old as the republic itself, but one that seems increasingly elusive in an era of hyper-partisan mapmaking.
As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the fight over redistricting is far from over. With California and Texas now locked in a high-stakes tit-for-tat, and other states like New York and Missouri poised to join the fray, the coming months promise more legal battles, more political maneuvering, and, if Brooks’ dire warnings are any guide, more soul-searching about the health of American democracy. Whether the nation can find its way back from the brink—or whether, as Brooks fears, it is doomed to a “race to the bottom”—remains to be seen.
For now, voters and politicians alike are left to grapple with the consequences of a system where, too often, the lines on the map seem to matter more than the voices at the ballot box.
