Well, he does like the pagan temple setting and being treated like a divinity. But more like a character in one of Aristophanes' comedies. Or from I, Claudius or The Life of Brian.
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.
No kidding. My family has been studying the Greek classics for the last six months or so, and there's a definite outcry of "MOONBAT!" about Plato. What you can expect, I guess, when you introduce Thomas Sowell first.
Well, he does like the pagan temple setting and being treated like a divinity. But more like a character in one of Aristophanes' comedies. Or from I, Claudius or The Life of Brian.
Hope I'm not saying this the wrong way, and maybe I'm just overanalyzing this - Interesting how we see intelligence a little differently. Your weigh languages and the classics higher while I look at sciences and math as a larger determinant. Perhaps it's our individual past - I struggled with trying to learn German way back in high school (way, way back), but I have always found it easy to deal with physics and math. Mechanical things are art to me. Ancient paintings are just old paintings.
I'm pretty certain that you see that differently.
Anyway, getting back to the primary subject - I really don't see any strong intelligence in Obama beyond his skill at speaking the written word. He balks when he has to think on his feet. He's very much the reciter - "put air in your tires to save gas". Probably doesn't even understand why inflating tires properly or higher would decrease rolling resistance - he just read it somewhere and recited it.
I think accomplishments in maths and physics and so on are also strong evidence of intelligence. These aren’t intuitive for me, although I can learn them with diligent effort. I learn languages easily and absorb literature for the sheer joy. My 17-year-old daughter in community college is agonizing over Spanish, while rhapsodizing over automotive technology. My 6-year-old, as I said, is learning 3 languages. (He’s nuts.) My 10-year-old has perfect pitch and reads Spanish phonetically without understanding it. It’s just personal differences.
However, whatever evidences of intelligence or academic competence we look at, I’m still not seeing that we have any evidence on Barack Obama. Okay, he can read a text fluently and persuasively. That’s an accomplishment, such as it is, but it’s not an indicator of intelligence per se. It’s a form of acting skill.
The concept of Barack Obama in an Aristophanes comedy will keep me up at night laughing hysterically. Monty Python is stylistically right in the zone. When those guys meet Aristophanes in the Hereafter, it’ll be Old Home Week.
Power to the peeeooopppplllleee!!!!
But I find the physical much more intuitive - much more interesting, and easier to master. Perhaps it's partly the "interest" thing. I, too, have family members that carry some interesting traits - Mom has perfect pitch, and my oldest sister speaks 3 languages. My middle sister's youngest son is a gifted pianist, but chose to join the Navy right out of high school rather than continue with music. I speak English, and still remember about 50 German words, but I'd rather rebuild a transmission than study a foreign language.
Indeed, we all differ. Even within our own families.
I would say that the skill of speaking and persuading is a sign of respectable intelligence. Although I tend to refer to Obama as being incredibly stupid (well, he does subscribe to the democrat cause so he can't be too intelligent), I think that overall, he is of average intelligence. His skill in the area of public speaking and reading indicates some intelligence, but it appears that he sometimes doesn't understand what he's reading. And if he isn't reading, he really stumbles. It's hard to say whether that stumbling comes from a fear of public speaking (I've been through that a few times) or a lack of strong understanding of the subject material. His gaffs don't speak well of him either way. And some don't seem so much mis-spoken as pointed remarks made without regard to others hearing. It sometimes seems as if he thinks he's speaking privately with a group of like-minded people when, in fact, his statements are quite public (witness the "lipstick" statement).
I agree, simple verbal facility is *something*. I can read persuasively in English, Spanish, Latin, Japanese, Greek, and French (although I got a certificate for the Worst French Accent in my college choir one year :-). However, it's an awfully weak foundation for someone running for POTUS.
I always wonder about leftists, and Democrats in general. Are they hawg-stupid, or are they evil. I'm going toward evil with Obama, but we still don't have much concrete evidence that it's not simple Stupid.
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.