Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE CONSERVATIVE ELITES ATTACK! (Laura Ingraham v. David Brooks)
Laura Ingraham e-Blast | 9-16-8 | Laura Ingraham

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; conservatism; davidbrooks; edmundburke; elitists; ingraham; mccainpalin; metrosexuals; nyslimes; palin; sarahpalin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
Nice!
1 posted on 09/16/2008 3:50:52 PM PDT by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Petronski

David Brooks is no conservative. Like Andrew Sullivan, his politics are driven by his sexual (dis)orientation.


2 posted on 09/16/2008 3:56:37 PM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

I believe David Brooks is the CNN/Time homosexual “conservative.” He’s a complete phony.


3 posted on 09/16/2008 3:58:41 PM PDT by ChessExpert (If it had been up to Hussein Obama, Saddam Hussein would still be in power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Nice except for the first half, which is an argument to elect Barack Obama.

Speaking of Barack, he's got a new movie out that his constituency will really love...


4 posted on 09/16/2008 3:58:47 PM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (Palin 2008 (oh yeah, and McCain too))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

I didn’t know he was a homosexual. That explains a lot.


5 posted on 09/16/2008 3:59:00 PM PDT by FFranco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

“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.

:-)


6 posted on 09/16/2008 4:01:24 PM PDT by Canedawg (Sarah Palin Rocks. McCain-Palin '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

Here’s a good spot for streaming Bill Bennett and then Laura Ingraham.

http://www.1320wbob.com/

KRLA used to be perfect for this, but they decided they’d rather go with a lesser product in the 9-12est slot.


7 posted on 09/16/2008 4:01:51 PM PDT by Petronski (Please pray for the success of McCain and Palin. Every day, whenever you pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Brooks, like a handful of other pseudo-conservative pseudo-intellectuals...

Fixed!

8 posted on 09/16/2008 4:02:48 PM PDT by Road Warrior ‘04 (Kill 'em til they're dead, then kill 'em again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: perfect_rovian_storm
Nice except for the first half, which is an argument to elect Barack Obama.

I don't read it that way at all.

9 posted on 09/16/2008 4:03:11 PM PDT by Petronski (Please pray for the success of McCain and Palin. Every day, whenever you pray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
She is certainly the most promising such figure to come along since the elites were denouncing Ronald Reagan.

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.

10 posted on 09/16/2008 4:06:02 PM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what hall iron do?" --Chaucer .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

David Brooks is GAY?? Are you SURE???


11 posted on 09/16/2008 4:06:23 PM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion.....The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

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.


12 posted on 09/16/2008 4:07:15 PM PDT by ari-freedom (We never hide from history. We make history!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
...her populist appeal is dangerous and ill-conceived.

That statement alone is proof of Brooks' elitism. Anyone can make the claim to be a populist (interested in the needs of 'ordinary' people.) But a true populist has to connect with those ordinary people for their populism to be ratified. And Sarah Palin has, so far, made that connection. So the people ultimately determine who is a populist and who ain't. To claim that her populism is "ill-conceived" is really an elitist swipe at her supporters.
13 posted on 09/16/2008 4:07:27 PM PDT by newheart (The Truth? You can't handle the Truth. But He can handle you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

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.


14 posted on 09/16/2008 4:09:55 PM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm (Palin 2008 (oh yeah, and McCain too))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

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).


15 posted on 09/16/2008 4:12:25 PM PDT by Lobbyist (I want my American dream!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy; All

SORRY - confused him with David Brock! Please accept my apology.


16 posted on 09/16/2008 4:13:03 PM PDT by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

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.


17 posted on 09/16/2008 4:14:01 PM PDT by Doug TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Edmund Burke apotheosized about the importance of the people and their rash passions being restrained by a tempered elite and the tradition of the ages. Laura Ingraham turns the received conservative wisdom found in the Reflections upside down. The threat to the family, wisdom and the conservative heritage comes not from the conservative masses but from the radical elites who seek to lay waste to all before them. The people desire to keep intact what they rightly cherish. Far from being the enemy of the old; they are its best friend and in their passion for individualism and their love of the sacred, they are the bodyguards of their country. It is necessary for men to revisit how best to advance conservatism and I would like to think that in our own time, the venerable Burke would champion such a change.

"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

18 posted on 09/16/2008 4:14:20 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
He yearns for the day when "conservatism was once a frankly elitist movment," one that stressed "classical education, hard-earned knowledged, experience, and prudence."

NO!!!! He did NOT say that. Only a RINO would say that...what?...ooooooooooh!

19 posted on 09/16/2008 4:15:07 PM PDT by LakeLady (Lipstick does not improve the PIAPS (pig in a pant suit).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
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.

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.

20 posted on 09/16/2008 4:16:04 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson