Fundamentally, Brooks does not understand conservatism nor conservatives. Oh yes, he declares himself to be a “conservative”, but that’s a conservative who doesn’t associate with the help.
I don’t consider myself to be a “pure” democrat. I am glad that we live in some semblance of a constitutional republic. But Brooks tends towards more of a, well, royalist, or perhaps a class based kind of conservatism, in which the commons may benefit, but most definitely are not seen and not heard, save for the trips by presidential candidates to the rustic parts of our country for a trip down nostalgia lane.
This is why Sarah Palin offends him so. He is absolutely opposed to the notion of the citizen-politician. Politics is too important to be left to the masses. Their betters are the ones who should be entrusted with governmental power. Nevermind that Lincoln was essentially a self-educated hick from the boondocks. Truman was another commoner who through a series of unfortunate occurrences ended up in the Oval Office. Men like Roosevelt (either), Kennedy, and Bush41 are the type of men Brooks believes should be the executive in our federal government. Patrician, wealthy, Ivy League educated, and ‘wise.’ Men like, well, him.
quote: “... But Brooks tends towards more of a, well, royalist, or perhaps a class based kind of conservatism, in which the commons may benefit, but most definitely are not seen and not heard, save for the trips by presidential candidates to the rustic parts of our country for a trip down nostalgia lane.
This is why Sarah Palin offends him so. He is absolutely opposed to the notion of the citizen-politician. Politics is too important to be left to the masses. Their betters are the ones who should be entrusted with governmental power. Nevermind that Lincoln was essentially a self-educated hick from the boondocks. Truman was another commoner who through a series of unfortunate occurrences ended up in the Oval Office. Men like Roosevelt (either), Kennedy, and Bush41 are the type of men Brooks believes should be the executive in our federal government. Patrician, wealthy, Ivy League educated, and ‘wise.’ Men like, well, him...”
Ha ha . Indeed ! Thanks for the post. Spot on.
In fact this is one of the reasons Palin offends the “progressives” as well. She is one of us “peeps” and not of the inside “skull-and-bones-ivy-league-masonic-boys-club-pre approved-etc”.
DING DING DING DING ....
No more calls, please, no more calls. We have a winner.
Seriously, you have it precisely right. I would add, moreover, that it was the mandarin Acheson, not the former haberdasher Truman, who committed the verbal stumble (omitting Korea from a list of our guarantees) that brought on the Korean War. And it was the deep, wide counsel of the "wise men" in the Kennedy Administration (Averell Harriman, Maxwell Taylor, the Bundy brothers, etc.), and not the Main Street leadership of the Babbitt-like Sen. Bob Taft (R-Ohio) or his successor Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) that took us to Vietnam.
As for what separates the luminary lords of Manor Bush from Babbitts like Taft, it is instructive to remember that the Bush founder/dynast Prescott Bush began life as a shoe salesman in Ohio (Taft's state) who, wanting to get ahead in the world, figured out that the road up lay through Yale University, where "Pressy" managed to "get over" on the fellows of the class that must be deferred to, in consequence of which Pressy eventually became a United States senator from Connecticut -- and George H.W. Bush a legacy Yalie and Bonesman.
Such is that which separates patrician Bushes from proletarian Tafts.
Do these "betters" include Alger Hiss, the Soviet spy who liked to brag about being a Harvard graduate?