Posted on 09/16/2008 3:50:52 PM PDT by Petronski
THE CONSERVATIVE ELITES ATTACK!
In today's New York Times, David Brooks launches a critique of Sarah Palin, essentially concluding that her populist appeal is dangerous and ill-conceived. He yearns for the day when "conservatism was once a frankly elitist movement," one that stressed "classical education, hard-earned knowledged, experience, and prudence." Brooks, like a handful of other conservative intellectuals, believes Palin "compensates for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."
Well, at the risk of appearing brash, let me say that I am glad to see my old friend finally pushed to the point where he has to make an overt defense of elitism, after years of demonstrating covert support for elitism. We conservatives who believe Governor Palin represents a solid vice-presidential pick should be extremely comfortable engaging this issue.
Brooks's main argument against Palin is that she lacks the type of experience and historical understanding that led President Bush to a 26 percent approval rating in his final months in office. Yet the notion that the Bush Administration got into trouble because it didn't have enough "experience" is absurd. George W. Bush was governor of Texas for six years. His father was president. His primary advisors on matters of foreign policy were Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell. In 2000, it could hardly have been possible to find a more experienced team to head up a GOP administration. Brooks's notion that the Bush Administration was "the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice" is simply ludicrous. Does anyone believe that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld count as "anti-establishment"?
Of course, we could also consider the Nixon Administration. Who had more experience than Richard Nixon? How'd that work out? What about George H.W. Bush? How did his administration do? What about Herbert Hoover who had vast experience both in terms of dealing with foreign countries during World War I and in terms of dealing with the U.S. economy as secretary of Commerce? How did he do? The truth is that Brooks's basic claim that experienced leaders are necessarily better than inexperienced leaders simply doesn't hold water.
Now let's look at the broader issue of elitism versus populism. For Brooks to be right, his elites have to make better policy judgments than average Americans. But he overlooks the fact that in America we have a particularly bad elite, an elite that holds most Americans in contempt and has no sympathy for the history and traditions that make us great. And that elite has been wrong on issue after issue for most of the last 40 years. Who was more right about the Soviet Union, the elites or the people? Who was more right about the need to cut taxes in the 1970s, the elites or the people? Who was more right about the need to get tough on crime, the elites in black robes with life tenure, or the folks cheering for Dirty Harry? Who would Brooks trust to decide critical issues regarding the War on Terror today, the voters or the inside-the-Beltway types who lose sleep over tough interrogation tactics? Elites particularly our American elite are much more likely to go for the latest fad, for seek to apply whatever notion is currently trendy in the salons of Europe. To find true Burkean conservatism in this country to find citizens who are both respectful of our country's traditions and anxious to see our country remain a world leader you have to turn to the voters.
The truth is that it is no longer possible to govern this country through a conservative elite. We have a radical elite, an elite that believes in climate change, gay marriage, unrestricted abortions, and the United Nations. We have an elite that intends to make massive, liberal changes to every aspect of American life. This elite ruins almost everything it touches from the schools, to the media, to the universities. Giving more power to the elites means watching the United States become more and more like Europe.
Populism rests on two great insights. First, it understands that the people (taken as a whole) are often wiser and more prudent than the elites. Average people are almost always respectful of tradition, while elites tend to act like an angry mob trying to tear down the old idols. Second, populism understands that it's not enough to actually have the right policy ideas, you have to have the will to take on the elites who will try to prevent those ideas from going into place. In order to get anything accomplished, the GOP is going to have to use public opinion to override the objections of liberals, including liberals in the media.
Does Sarah Palin have the political skills to successfully govern this country from a populist perspective? It's far too early to say. She is certainly the most promising such figure to come along since the elites were denouncing Ronald Reagan. And therefore we should all wish her well. It is silly to criticize her at this early stage until we know a lot more about her abilities as a leader. I am glad to say that her instincts appear to be sound.
David Brooks is no conservative. Like Andrew Sullivan, his politics are driven by his sexual (dis)orientation.
I believe David Brooks is the CNN/Time homosexual “conservative.” He’s a complete phony.
Speaking of Barack, he's got a new movie out that his constituency will really love...
I didn’t know he was a homosexual. That explains a lot.
“We have a radical elite, an elite that believes in climate change, gay marriage, unrestricted abortions, and the United Nations. We have an elite that intends to make massive, liberal changes to every aspect of American life. This elite ruins almost everything it touches from the schools, to the media, to the universities. Giving more power to the elites means watching the United States become more and more like Europe.”
I like Laura.
:-)
Here’s a good spot for streaming Bill Bennett and then Laura Ingraham.
KRLA used to be perfect for this, but they decided they’d rather go with a lesser product in the 9-12est slot.
Fixed!
I don't read it that way at all.
The Washington elites and country-club set detested Reagan. They had to respect him when he won the presidency, but they were very two-faced in their dealings with him. As for David Brooks, since when does he speak for any Republican constituency? I thought he was a Democrat.
David Brooks is GAY?? Are you SURE???
you have to have balance. McCain has a ton of washington experience. Palin on the other hand, truly gets what the folks have to deal with. And yes, the fact that she can see Russia, a nuclear armed country that already invaded georgia, gives her a unique appreciation for national security that you can’t get from policy briefings and textbooks.
Well, I should phrase it better. The same exact argument could be made for Barack Obama. Sarah HAS experience. Running down others who had experience and saying that others who had experience previously failed isn’t a helpful pro-Palin argument IMHO. It seems, Laura bought the false premise that Brooks offered, which means he basically won the argument before it started.
Brooks is married I believe. I think he is married to the woman who started some conservation woman’s organization whose name escapes me now. I’m not sure but I also think he is a naturalized citizen (Canadian).
SORRY - confused him with David Brock! Please accept my apology.
Ingraham’s failure to deal with Noonan, Meyers, and Hutchison in a similar manner has me losing interest in her opinion. She has little or no criticism for her buddy, Andrea Mitchell, on any given disinformation project. Every day she mentions one of her new liberal buds and how they are ‘ok’....why go after Brooks? Plenty of rhinos and hot mics to write about.
She is quickly becoming a ‘back bencher’ as another radio personality likes to say.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
NO!!!! He did NOT say that. Only a RINO would say that...what?...ooooooooooh!
As it always is. Classical Greece, Imperial Rome, even in a twisted sort of way, the Soviet Union. There are leaders and there are elites. Leaders look out for their people. Elites look out for themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.