His Highness David Brooks slams Herman Cain: "Running for office is a job for professionals."

On Friday’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” host Robert Siegel asked New York Times columnist David Brooks if the surfacing of sexual allegations from the late 1990s reported by Politico last week was “the beginning of the end” for businessman Herman Cain’s presidential run.

“There was no beginning,” Brooks said. “He was a TV show that lasted for a little while. Let me stand up for elitist insiders — this is a job for professionals. Running for office is a job for professionals. Governing is a job for professionals. What Herman Cain did this — let’s leave aside the harassment, his handling of this was completely unprofessional. Every amateur candidate knows how to do a better job than this.”

She’s a smart woman. That’s why she had to be destroyed.

She certainly does not look nor sound destroyed. No, she isn't running for president, but I don't think that was her primary aim. (She said so, she wrote so, and I believed her. The odds against her were just too big.) She wants to help restore the US, and she will work as hard as ever to do that. She will not "just" give speeches, but when she does, she is still on top of her game. Now, let's not make this a pro/con SP thread, but return to our venerable elitist: David Brooks.

The ruling class knows it's a ruling class and intends to stay that way. Brooks is a member in good standing. What else would he say?

Cain is, however, a fellow with more professional executive chops than anyone in the front line of that paean to amateur incompetence that is the current administration. If governing is for professionals then most of that gaggle of self-regarding fools ought to find a pink slip on their desks come Monday morning, and the country would be vastly better off for it.

But Brooks has touched, albeit unknowingly, on the real problem with American politics at the moment - our government is composed not of professionals at executive administration, but professionals at campaigning, and what Brooks is finding inadequate about Cain is that he is not a professional at running for office. Shall we describe that sort of professional? He or she is an expert at the rousing speech full of vague generalities, at the perpetration of illusion, at manipulation of public image through the media, at accusation, ridicule and lies, at striking a heroic pose with the substance of a coward, at convincing the gullible that failed promises are only another election away from fulfillment, at cunning slander, duplicity, mendacity, and shameless exploitation of office and public funds for no better purpose than self-aggrandizement and its perpetuation. That is the sort of "professionalism" Brooks so admires in 0bama and in the Clintons before him. Public office is for that sort of blot on human dignity? Yes, actually, it is, and that's what has become wrong with public office.

What's wrong with Brooks is that he feels that the same circumstances apply to political commentary, or more precisely, political commentators, as well. That is why Rush Limbaugh so infuriates the suits in front of the camera, and why contributors to Free Republic meet a wall of horrified disdain when they manage to force into the public eye a matter the professional commentariat have declined to address. To Brooks the American public is a flock of sheep in search of a professional shepherd, and although we do act like that with distressing frequency it's a very dangerous metaphor, because we're not when it comes down to it. And it has.

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.