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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

At least Obama is smart enough to learn to read classical Greek in a few months, if he put his mind to it. Not Biden, however, it’s all he can do to keep English straight.


41 posted on 09/16/2008 5:20:30 PM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Give 'em Hell, Sarah!
42 posted on 09/16/2008 5:30:56 PM PDT by mc5cents (Show me just what Mohammd brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user; Petronski

He never popped in on the Straussian seminars at Chicago? Still, you have to wonder about this global messiah stuff, healing the planet, etc. That seems almost New Age. And then Alinsky's Lucifer dedication. You know, what's that all about???

It hasn't received much scrutiny from the MSM or the Platonic elite. Are they just trying to hide his gnosticism for him until the time is right?

43 posted on 09/16/2008 5:30:58 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Brooks is the token “conservative” of the NYT columnists. He is about as conservative as Joe Biden. I read this today and obviously he is in the tank for Obama.
44 posted on 09/16/2008 5:39:01 PM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
At least Obama is smart enough to learn to read classical Greek in a few months, if he put his mind to it.

And we know that ... how?

45 posted on 09/16/2008 5:45:06 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Even for a thin-skinned solipsistic narcissist, Obama seems a frightful po-faced pill." ~Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

Indeed! His comments took me by surprise.


46 posted on 09/16/2008 5:46:42 PM PDT by Lobbyist (I want my American dream!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
And we know that ... how?

When he begins to read it from his teleprompter.

47 posted on 09/16/2008 5:47:48 PM PDT by meyer (Go, Sarah, Go!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: meyer

Ah, I see ... it’s an assumption based on his myriad high intellectual achievements up to this point ...

What languages does Mr. Obama know, other than English?


48 posted on 09/16/2008 5:49:42 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Even for a thin-skinned solipsistic narcissist, Obama seems a frightful po-faced pill." ~Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Doug TX

I listen to Laura 6am every morning. It sounds like you have missed most of her programs in recent months.
She is in the top 5 for most listened
More conservative than most.


49 posted on 09/16/2008 5:52:58 PM PDT by SoCalPol (McCain / Palin 08 The Only Choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
David Brooks is not gay. He is an interesting guy. He is thoughtful. He has made some interesting contributions. However, he's WAY off. Both he, and former Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson at the Washington Post, believe in Big Government" conservatism. In my world that's an oxymoron. I just don't understand what conservatism is if it means berating (Brooks did this in last week's column) Barry Goldwater and complaining about social conservatives.

Both Brooks and Gerson are about as conservative as they can handle at the Slimes. Give the Washington Post props for carrying George Will and Charles Krauthammer.

The bad news is McCain buys into the Brooks and Gerson version. Did any of you hear the rhetoric from the McCain camp on the economic "crisis?" Saw Carly Fiorina talking about McCain's belief in a "robust" government. I guess they have to do that at this moment. However, freeper brand of conservatism is in serious trouble no matter whom we elect. I am aboard the McCain-Palin Express. However, I am very aware of the eventual destination.

50 posted on 09/16/2008 5:57:57 PM PDT by davidtalker (David Gold - goldtalk.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

“Obama is smart enough to read classical Greek in a few months IF he put his mind to it.”
Is he too freekin dumb to do it quicker “if he put his mind to it”?
Why did he address the beer hounds of Berlin in English for gosh sakes?


51 posted on 09/16/2008 5:59:56 PM PDT by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Titus-Maximus
The Governor has moral fiber and a strong backbone, palpable courage, and people will willingly follow her into battle - that’s a leader...

Exactly - she's a leader because people recognize her strengths and are willing to follow her. Many profess to be leaders, and yet have no followers (Obambi comes to mind, and I believe him to be a follower himself).

Good post - especially your examples of leadership vs. management. I wouldn't even call Slick's response "managing" - I'd call it CYA.

52 posted on 09/16/2008 6:05:29 PM PDT by meyer (Go, Sarah, Go!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Oh, Obama is quite a bright fellow at book-learning. Greek would be right up his alley.

It is common sense, wisdom, and practical knowledge that he is lacking in.


53 posted on 09/16/2008 6:06:43 PM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

Can we start a scholarship fund to send him back to college?


54 posted on 09/16/2008 6:08:33 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
Obama is quite a bright fellow at book-learning.

You say that, but what's the evidence? Do we have his SAT scores, his undergraduate transcript, his LSAT scores, his law school grades, etc.? I'm not seeing a great fund of general knowledge from this guy. For example, what languages does he know? My six-year-old is in the throes of Greek (New Testament Greek, because that's what you can find a workbook for at this age) and Spanish, and French.

55 posted on 09/16/2008 6:12:37 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Even for a thin-skinned solipsistic narcissist, Obama seems a frightful po-faced pill." ~Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: nkycincinnatikid

Classical Attic Greek is a very difficult language.

Each verb has 6 principal parts that can produce over 500 different forms. The syntax is also quite difficult to master, espcially in complex prose like Plato. About three months of memorizing grammar and vocabulary, with four hours a day minimum, is about the least it would take to stumble through a simple dialogue like The Crito, which is usually what they use as a beginner’s text.


56 posted on 09/16/2008 6:13:40 PM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I have absolutely no idea what languages Obama knows. He's a good speaker in English, as long as he has the written word in front of him. Without the script, he fails.

I know you were looking for more, but that's where my "teleprompter" statement came from. I really don't think he has a grasp of much of anything else - certainly not science or economics.

My honest opinion of him is that he's the tool of someone else - someone with some money and with a motivation that is counter to the free enterprise system that has helped make this country great.

57 posted on 09/16/2008 6:21:09 PM PDT by meyer (Go, Sarah, Go!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: meyer; proxy_user

I see something of the points both of you are trying to make. I’m just considering, as the discussion develops, what evidence we have that Barack Obama is more than average smart, as we generally measure these things in terms of grades, test scores, or specific accomplishments such as learning Greek, which I find pretty easy because it’s surprisingly similar to Spanish, as was Japanese.


58 posted on 09/16/2008 6:30:49 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("Even for a thin-skinned solipsistic narcissist, Obama seems a frightful po-faced pill." ~Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom; All

Yes, and what is preposterous is that Brooks is discussing Palin as though she is running for President rather than for VP as part of a TEAM with a highly experienced Presidential candidate (whatever one thinks of some of his particular views). Also, it is ludicrous to have this discussion absent the context of Obambi heading up the other ticket. Sure, in a perfect world one would want a candidate with all sorts of experiences that NONE of the current candidates combine in one package. But, when the alternative to Palin as VP with McCain as President is the utterly naive, ignorant, shallow, and yes “inexperienced” Obama as President, then the discussion of Governor Palin should look very different. McCain/Palin are not running against some highly experienced and fabulously expert Presidential candidate on the other ticket; Obama is just about the most inexperienced and scary Presidential candidate on a major party ticket in the past century.

To criticize Palin as thoroughly as Brooks does without any intelligent comparisons to the only alternative in this election is reckless, dishonest, and irresponsible.

Is Brooks a closet Democrat? He sure acts like one.


59 posted on 09/16/2008 6:31:41 PM PDT by Enchante (OBAMAGATE: Iraqi Foreign Minister Says Obama Tried to Derail Agreement on Troop Withdrawals!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user; Tax-chick

Maybe Charlie Gibson could quiz him on Plato's doctrine of μέθεξις in his next interview. They could both get together on the theory of Forms.

There are certain similarities between Obama's ideas and the theory of Communism outlined in The Republic.

60 posted on 09/16/2008 6:39:00 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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