David Brooks: The Class War Before Palin

NY Times ^

[Chet 99]

Modern conservatism began as a movement of dissident intellectuals. Richard Weaver wrote a book called, “Ideas Have Consequences.” Russell Kirk placed Edmund Burke in an American context. William F. Buckley famously said he’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. But he didn’t believe those were the only two options. His entire life was a celebration of urbane values, sophistication and the rigorous and constant application of intellect.

Driven by a need to engage elite opinion, conservatives tried to build an intellectual counterestablishment with think tanks and magazines. They disdained the ideas of the liberal professoriate, but they did not disdain the idea of a cultivated mind.

Ronald Reagan was no intellectual, but he had an earnest faith in ideas and he spent decades working through them. He was rooted in the Midwest, but he also loved Hollywood. And for a time, it seemed the Republican Party would be a broad coalition — small-town values with coastal reach.

In 1976, in a close election, Gerald Ford won the entire West Coast along with northeastern states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine. In 1984, Reagan won every state but Minnesota.

[word_warrior_bob]

Ronald Reagan was no intellectual,

________________

Stop posting crap from this loser.

Ronald Reagan was the consummate intellectual, he spent his whole life, reading and writing about issues and left a paper trail 100 miles long. Just because he didn’t pose and preen like the sub-intellect “intellectuals” like Al Gore, John Kerry, Peggy Noonan and David Brooks doesn’t change that fact.

Ronald Reagan was a brilliant man, stunningly brilliant and ahead of his time.

Read “Reagan in his own hand” for proof.

[padre35]

Who is this David Broks guy? He sounds like a schmuck...

[Chet 99]

He’s the NY Times “House Conservative”

[caveat emptor]

No thanks.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin.

Brooks can't serious. Ever hear of a guy named Barack Obama?

>>>>>Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

Palin is merely pointing out the differences between those that want to retain traditional America, versus those who want us to become a colony of European socialism.

[Reagan Man]

The left can’t stand any conservative.

Especially the highly successful ones like Ronald Reagan.

[13Sisters76]

An interesting article from one who claims to be a conservative. I didn’t know much about him until recently, but of one thing I am sure- he has NO CLUE what it means to be a conservative and he doesn’t know how to “read” the landscape.

His assessment of how we have “lost” the banking community, for example, does not take into account the banking executives who have made sweetheart deals with DC leading to their protected thievery, and THAT was with democrats more than with republicans. The “loss” of certain groups had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with self-enrichment. As to the lawyers? they were never conservatives and the left can have them.

Conservatives have an abiding love of our history and what we believe about human dignity and freedom and THAT is the difference between us and those who think that some humans are just more “evolved”. I would far prefer to stand with those who believe in God and are the “salt of the earth” than with those who are so grand in their own mind. It seems Mr Brooks doesn’t get this.

I wonder what WFB would think of this?

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>I wonder what WFB would think of this?

“I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”

~~~ William F. Buckley, Jr.

[Philo-Junius]

No one in the Republican Party told the intellectuals to get lost: they told the intellectuals to stop slumming in the filth the Left had been selling as culture for the last 40 years.

It seems Brooks has decided whose parties he wants to attend...

[winner3000]

Who still thinks Brooks is a conservative? Crickets chirping...

[roses of sharon]

Brooks conveniently forgets about Hussein's “clinging to guns and religion” statement to his San Fran friends.

Obviously this snob is embarrassed in front of his liberal peers in Manhattan, that his party chose Gov Palin.

What a sleazeball.

[pissant]

Frankly, after listening to and reading both Reagan and Buckley for the last 30 years, I beleive Reagan to be twice teh intellect of WFB. Certainly twice as wise. Not because Buckley wasn’t highly intelligent, he was. But Reagan was even moreso, for he understood the world better and fought it in the trenches.

I have more knowledge in my big toe than Brooks will ever have.

[SAJ]

Your evaluation of him, while far too charitable, is spot on...except he's not Jewish (afaik). The term you want, perhaps, instead of ''schmuck'', is ''another sorry-ass jerk who lives in NYC and thinks he knows his arse from a hole in the ground AND knows how to tell everyone else in the nation how to think and how to live''.

Merely an observation.

FReegards!

[SAJ]

Excellently well said!!

[irishjuggler]

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole.

Bull! Brooks' thesis has no basis in reality. How quickly we forget how the Republican base rejected non-intellectual Harriet Miers but enthusiastically embraced the scholarly Sam Alito of Princeton and Yale.

[pallis]

Forget terms like neocon or paleocon. The Republican party is divided between social conservatives and society conservatives. Society conservatives are embarrassed by the social conservatives that came along after Carter to take them to the party. Truth be told, they are still embarrassed by Reagan, and they detest the fact that Sarah, not Rudy or Mitt, has emerged as the leader that will bring the Republican Party out of the dung heap it has thrown itself into. With all due respect to the think tanks and wine sipping intellectuals, without leaders like Sarah, the conservative movement is all for naught. Wake up and smell the liberals. This government is rancid with their stink. Either Republicans get together to back those passionate enough to win, or we resign ourselves to being governed by the radicals on the left.

[Chet 99]

There are a number of “society conservatives”, especially over at the Weekly Standard, who love Palin.

[Eva]

Does one have be -

Does one have to be Jewish to be a “schmuck”?

[word_warrior_bob]

I really get angry when people say Reagan wasn’t smart, here is a guy who was a true intellect, spent his whole life reading and writing in 10 times the quantity of the intellectual lilliputians who criticize him.

He had no time for sitcoms or nonsense, a true renaissance man, constantly savaged by morons who can’t write their way out of a paper bag. Peggy Noonan would have you believe she was his “brain”. Reagan was notorious for polishing the speeches written for him, he fought for “tear down this wall”, the State Department weasels and “advisers” kept telling him to take it out, he kept writing it back in. Peggy Noonan couldn’t amount to a pimple on his butt.

[Philo-Junius]

There’s nothing wrong with being a wine-sipping intellectual; the problem is with wine-sipping intellectuals who cannot be bothered to calculate the devastating social consequences of attempting to govern the entire country guided by the empirically falsified antinomian wishful thinking of the Left.

[Philo-Junius]

Hmm. Maybe the problem here is that Brooks believes that materialist positivism is synonymous with intellectualism.

[OKIEDOC]

Why are we posting this phony elitist RINO.

Moderator's please do not allow any more posting of threads by David Brooks a true turncoat liberal.

[TAdams8591]

Why specifically pick on Reagan, if not to take a stab at conservatives?

Reagan was more intellectual than most. If Reagan wasn't an intellectual name a president from the sixties onward who was. Nixon? Johnson? Carter? Ford? Clinton? LOL! Kennedy, perhaps.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

I disagree.

Every now and again, it amuses us to deconstruct the musings of one of the self-appointed pseudo-intellectuals who deign to call themselves conservative.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Don’t stop posting guys like this.

Nattering from our “own” nabobs of negativity fires us up.

[FlyVet]

Exactly.

Ivy Leagure = "Don't reason with me. I don't have to listen to you. I'm smart. My pedigree proves it.

We see that smartness unfolding before us these days.

[ExGeeEye]

So he's not a schmuck. But he is a (Richard). And somehow, he manages to come across as a (Cat) as well; a biological impossibility (a "Richard" and a "Cat" cannot occupy the same space in a single organism), but in this case, a philosophical fait accompli.

[SAJ]

Just a guess, but probably not.

Consider, for example, Gork (aka AlGore). Undoubtedly a schmuck by any reasonable definition. How in the world does ANYONE flunk out of Divinity School, eh?

Yet, Gork managed to do so. 1969, unless I'm very much mistaken.

;^)

[SAJ]

David Brooks, in my not necessarily humble opinion, hasn’t been worth the trouble to type two sentences about for at least 15 years.

[Eva]

Divinity school was probably one of the toughest courses he could have taken. I had to read a little of each of those religious philosophers and it was really difficult, especially if you weren’t particularly interested in contemplating you’re ultimate concern. Paul Tillich, Kierkegard, Neibuhr, and a bunch more. The “Ultimate Concern”, is how Tillich defined God. Maybe that’s how Gore turned into Mr. Greenjeans, he decided that the environment was his ultimate concern.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I remember when the Panama Canal treaty was at issue. There was a debate at the time, with Buckley FOR the treaty and Reagan AGAINST. Buckley was a founding intellect of the conservative movement, we might not exist if it hadn't been for him. In terms of actual decision making though, he was always a little bit more moderate than the movement as a whole. In the early years of NR Bill Rusher, Frank Meyer, and Brent Bozell were always more hard core.

[SAJ]

If you say so. I was a freshman at Vanderbilt the year he flunked out of Vandy D-school.

He was an arrogant loudmouth then -- and apparently also a lazy sod who didn't bother to do his classwork. Thought he'd get a free pass on daddy's name.

BTW, the next year, he enrolled in Vandy Law. Didn't flunk out. Resigned before winter exams (because he knew he was ABOUT to flunk out).

I say nothing ill of divinity school students. I say nothing BUT ill of Gork. And, if you'll note, he has continued his (cough) curiously incompetent ways right straight through to this day.

[Misschuck]

Sign the petition

http://boycottnyt.com/

[Eva]

That’s what I meant, you can’t do divinity school without reading and thinking, a lot. You can’t cheat your way through it.

[x_plus_one]

Brooks does the best he can at trying to explain what he sees happening in politics. His perspective is near-sighted since he - like millions of others - live in culturally isolated pockets. Whole generations live, work, recreate and die within a single cultural meme.

East Coast, west coast, hollywood, academic strongholds, trial lawyers and wall street - are all black holes of cultural isolation. Once you buy into the comfortable, well-paid lifestyle - you are an easy target for corruption and the slippery slope of the liberal agenda.

[Iron Munro]

David Brooks may be the house conservative at the NY Times but he has been infected with leftist myopia and doesn't seem to know it.

FTA: "What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole."

If conservatives had really "slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole" would we be sending our children to college just as often as leftists? The majority of home schoolers are conservatives. Is that a disdain for education or a disdain for the socialist, leftist brainwashing kids get in government schools?

No, the real disdain, sneering and snarkiness is generally from left to right, not right to left.

Just look how Sarah Palin has been accepted (not) and treated (badly) by the left. But when she defends herself and her way of life this so-called conservative calls it class warfare.
I'm sure he wonders why Sarah won't be a well behaved little country bumpkin who gives a curtsey when her self declared intellectual betters make fun of her family and openly make snickering remarks about her baby's parentage and baseless accusations of family incest.

[Harry Wurzbach]

There are 3 Senators in this race and one Governor, from about as far as one can be and still live in the US. Brooks exudes the disdain for the common man that is firmly entrenched on the East Coast. Dare I say that Gov. Palin has actually stood for election to public office before and knows what it takes to win?

The matter is salesmanship. Brooks is concerned with selling conservatism in Manhattan. Gov. Palin is selling it to the nation. Brooks is playing a bit part in this, though not in his preferred role.

[13Sisters76]

;D

[13Sisters76]

Ah yes...poisoned by the beautiful people. I’m beginning to think Marilyn Manson was right.

[Rockingham]

Brooks has a point: Republicans and conservatives have lost a dangerously large slice of the educated class. Unfortunately, he blames conservatives in general for a more concrete problem: they and the GOP have been defined by the stumbling, inarticulate persona and passive nature of President George Bush.

Justly or not — and taking no account of merit — Bush gives the appearance of being not only incurious and unintellectual but unintelligent and cloddish. Bush is not a dolt, but he often seems to work hard at appearing to be one. Worst of all, he has no aptitude for making a case for his policies on an ongoing basis. He often appears to be in over his head, going from crisis to crisis on an ad hoc basis: Iraq; Katrina; and now the economy. Based on manner and record, how many of us would now hire Bush to run the family business?

Similarly, McCain's often impulsive nature and Rotarian style of speech (”my friends, let me tell you”) do him and the GOP no benefit with the educated classes. For good reason, Limbaugh often refers now to McCain as Yosemite Sam. “Maverick” refers to temperament, not a political philosophy. Until recently, the undisciplined McCain ran his own campaign, veering from one subject and idea to another based on whomever he had talked to last.

These comments may seem small faults to Bush and McCain fans, but bear in mind that for educated professionals and managers, quickness of mind and glibness of speech are essential. Obama’s resonant voice and manner of speech make him the anti-Bush and a Leftist version of Ronald Reagan. For many of the self-conscious educated class, Obama offers something precious: deliverance from having a President whose very persona is an embarrassment.

Plausibly, if McCain is elected, he may prove to have a more effective Presidential manner than Bush, and good performance may help win back some of the educated class. But conservatives will still find themselves having the burden of sometimes defending and sometimes opposing McCain's idiosyncratic personality and policies. That is not a recipe for a coherent and intellectually appealing conservative message.

[spatso]

I believe that David Books first worked for WFB. I think he believes himself to be both a student and disciple of WFB. His language and points of reference on the McCain campaign are remarkably similar to the article of yesterday by George Will. Peggy Noonan said similar things and there is an increasing number of respected conservative voices planting similar seeds.

Up until the 2006 mid terms I regularly posted on FR. Loved the debates and the exchange of ideas. But in 06 I became disgusted with many of the posters and the Rush Limbaugh type arguments in trying to defend Foley by blaming the Congressional pages for the sex scandal.

I do not think Brooks, Will, Noonan and others are really writing about November 4. I believe they are pointing towards a debate beginning November 5 on what it means to be conservative under the umbrella of the Republican Party.

Today the heart of the Republican party is owned by Rush Limbaugh. Conservatism is being defined in terms of an emotional and somewhat irrational, appeal that is grounded in its opposition to liberalism and a desire to win at any cost.

I think the Brooks article is very good. I wish some of you would go back and read it and try to find just one thing you can agree with. If you cannot find anything positive, the discussion after November 5 may turn very divisive.

[spatso]

Oops, I posted before reading your thoughts. Well done! I agree! I think it is profoundly naive for conservatives not to recognize Obama’s enormous political skill.

[Josh Painter]

Brooks is no conservative. Not in any way, shape or form.

[Iron Munro]

Instead of trying to convince Republicans to become Democrat-Lite Brooks could be thinking about ways to break the democrats hold on the blue collar working class, who have more in common with rank and file republicans than they do with democrats.

Democrats inherited the working class from the FDR years and inertia plays a large part in the reason they still vote democrat, even though democrat party policies do more harm to them than good.

The democrats keep blue collar voters distracted with emotional issues promoted to create and feed class warfare.
When the working class is divided and at each other’s throats over a few emotional issues they are blinded to, or don’t have the time or energy to consider the larger issues.

The Republican party needs to make the case to the working class that Republican policies are more in alignment with their beliefs, ethics and well being than the democrat party. But they seem to be outmaneuvered at every turn by democrats.

Look at the financial crisis - the people at the core of the problem are democrats but they have managed to manipulate events to put president Bush out in front as the culprit and the majority of the populace blame the meltdown on Republicans.

Democrats have managed to convince people that the Republican party is the old Herbert Hoover model, comprised of industry tycoons who have all the wealth and exist to abuse the working class. But we all know the reality is quite different.
At the least, Republicans need a good PR firm.

[nonsporting]

Who is this David Brooks guy? He sounds like a schmuck...

Brooks is the token David Gergen flavored "conservative" PBS has placed opposite Mark Shields, so Jim Lehr can get both sides of liberal opinion.

Since liberals "like" him, the best that can be said of him is that he's a quisling.

[pallis]

My intent wasn’t to impart wholesale blame onto all wine-sipping intellectuals, and certainly they aren’t all amoral nimrods, but a good number of self-considered elites came out of the conservative woodwork in 2006 to declare independence from social conservatives. If not for Sarah’s entrance onto the ticket, they almost got it.

[pissant]

Panama Canal treaty IS a classic example of conservatism as an intellectual exercise versus wisdom.

[therut]

I extremely disline so calle Republicians like this guy. They would be no Republician party without those people like Palin is fly-over country. We are the ones who send our sons and daughters off to war to fight for these elitist people to look down on us afterwards. We provide the backbone for the country. We work for these people and they spit on us. As long as they can get up to support them they will tolerate us. They will live to regret the day we turn aganist them and they become a permanent minority.

[AuntB]

“Forget terms like neocon or paleocon. The Republican party is divided between social conservatives and society conservatives. Society conservatives are embarrassed by the social conservatives that came along after Carter to take them to the party. Truth be told, they are still embarrassed by Reagan, and they detest the fact that Sarah, not Rudy or Mitt, has emerged as the leader that will bring the Republican Party out of the dung heap it has thrown itself into. With all due respect to the think tanks and wine sipping intellectuals, without leaders like Sarah, the conservative movement is all for naught. Wake up and smell the liberals. This government is rancid with their stink. Either Republicans get together to back those passionate enough to win, or we resign ourselves to being governed by the radicals on the left.”

Nice analysis.

Sarah Palin and The Nellie Olsons of the Media
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-and-nellie-olsons-of-media.html

They are beside themselves. Sarah Palin doesn’t do the DC cocktail circuit or Hollywood parties. She’s not ‘one of them’ and they are out to get her......from Katie Couric’s dissmissive attitude to the pure vitriol of the ‘ladies’ of the View. Madonna even gets her digs in against Palin. Now THERE is a role model! Well, Madonna, Sarah isn’t out to seek ‘your good opinion’ either!

Haven’t you heard? The ‘ladies’ of the the mainstream media have decided who is qualified to be vice president and why. They give no reasons, but many excuses....”redneck”, “hick”, “small town mayor”, “common”, “stupid”. You name the slur for anything western or rural and not ‘of the beltway’ and these Nellies have flung it all! They can’t attack her on her positive record or her looks or decency because she is head, shoulders and lipstick above them all.

Today one of them, Brigitte Bardot calls Sarah a ‘disgrace to women’. Ah, yes, another fine role model chiming in, probably wallowing in her faded, aged beauty. Another jealous Nellie.

Dolly Parton gets it. “I can relate to Sarah. We’re both small-town girls, both pentecostals and we both carry an AK-47.”

Not all the left leaning pundits are so myopic that they don’t see the real Sarah Palin.
Feminist Camille Paglia in today’s Salon article, ‘Nobody’s dummy’, puts to rest the bias.

“The mountain of rubbish poured out about Palin over the past month would rival Everest. What a disgrace for our jabbering army of liberal journalists and commentators, too many of whom behaved like snippy jackasses. The bourgeois conventionalism and rank snobbery of these alleged humanitarians stank up the place. As for Palin’s brutally edited interviews with Charlie Gibson and that viper, Katie Couric, don’t we all know that the best bits ended up on the cutting-room floor? Something has gone seriously wrong with Democratic ideology, which seems to have become a candied set of holier-than-thou bromides attached like tutti-frutti to a quivering green Jell-O mold of adolescent sentimentality.”