Conservative columnist David Brooks: the Republican party is anti-intellectual

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hildegarda
  • Start date Start date
H

Hildegarda

Guest
David Brooks is a conservative columnist who is very hard-line but pretends to be moderate in order to keep his cushy NYT position. Basically, a typical privileged high-profile hypocrite.

Earlier in the summer, he made a famous "Applebee's" comment about Obama. See a wikipedia quote:

In June 2008, while appearing as a guest commentator on The Race for the White House with David Gregory, Brooks made remarks referring to Barack Obama's so called "elitism", claiming that "less educated" and "downscale" people "look at Obama, and they don't see anything", and that "Obama's problem is he doesn‘t seem like a guy who can go into an Applebee‘s salad bar and people think he fits in naturally there..."[4] Immediately following the remark, internet blogs such as Daily Kos and television programs such as the Daily Show with Jon Stewart mocked Brooks with charges of hypocrisy, especially considering that Applebee's doesn't have a salad bar. Eugene Robinson, while speaking as a guest on MSNBC, commented that "I tend to take this sociology a little more seriously when it's delivered by people who actually eat at Applebee's more than once in a decade."



And now he turns around and spells out the obvious: the Republican party is anti-intellectual, has been appealing to the basest of the base for a long time now, and it has gotten markedly worse during this election because of Palin.


\\\http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html

[..] over the past few decades, the Republican Party has driven away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts. This expulsion has had many causes. But the big one is this: Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare. Democrats kept nominating coastal pointy-heads like Michael Dukakis so Republicans attacked coastal pointy-heads.

Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.

Republicans developed their own leadership style. If Democratic leaders prized deliberation and self-examination, then Republicans would govern from the gut.

[..]

The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions — Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.

The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.

This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clichés took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking “eastern elites.” (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.

Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. [Brooks, BTW, was the pundit who praised Palin's performance right after the debate. Sick bag smiley goes here] But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

We have already seen footage of crowds going berserk during McCain\Palin rallies.

And I think that if their talking heads from mainstream media outlets are beginning to own up to their party's "leadership style", it is a step in the same direction. The next thing after admitting it will be asserting that this is the way it should be, and those crazies in the rallies are doing the right thing. Descending into fascism.
:evil: :evil:
 
Re: a conservative columnist: the Republican party is anti-intellectual

a few insightful comments from the NYT readers:

The Republicans are more and more like the bullies in school who torment the smart kids.


i have no idea how brooks could write this column without a single mention of the increasing influence of evangelicals [..] this litmus test orthodoxy is a huge turn-off to thinking people, as is the anti-science dogma heard from many evangelical conservatives: no to stem cell research, no to teaching evolution, no to action on climate change.


What is amazing is that "Joe Sixpack" is really an insulting way to refer to working people. I conjurs up a guy who sits on his coach drinking beer and watching TV and does little else with his leisure time. Palin exalts not the virtues of average people but passive mediocrity. Who in the world would consider it a compliment to be referred to as "Joe Sixpack"? Who would want to be governed by a politician who when asked what newpapers and magazines she reads can't even fake it--"Oh, my local Alaska newspapers and the Times and the Washington Post on the web"?


To praise and elevate a ticket because of cleverness rather than substance turns the important issues into a game. But here in the US, we value the skills of pretending. After all, so much else is just facade. Potemkin may have started in Russia but we have refined it to the point of no longer being able to distinguish the truth.


Unfortunately, it's not just the Republican party who have become dumbed-down. Look at the popular TV programs and movies of today -- all appeal to the lowest common denominator.


the same Republican politicos who scorn and mock the intelligentsia (and particularly "the media") and who desperately try to appeal to Joe and Mrs Sixpack are themselves rolling in the kind of dough that the Sixpacks will never see- certainly not in the kind of deregulated financial environment that their leaders have manufactured. These cynics use mantras and homilies to delude the Sixpacks that they're on their side, seizing on fear and resentment so as to convince them that liberals (as well as blacks, gays, immigrants, atheists, etc.) are responsible for their lack of upward mobility.

Palin's demagoguery has gone well-beyond "class warfare" in any conventional sense and it's not enough to say she's gone "further" than others. She's turned what once was "class warfare" into a fascist-style incendiary attack thAT invites racial hatred. Her stump speech is a divisive appeal to ignorance and simplistic thinking.

the conservative movement [..] hasn't differentiated itself from fascism. There are no principles. It's all about power and "might is right" thinking. Bush exemplifies this, as does Palin [..]Conservatives have been proven hypocrites on so many issues that it's impossible to not believe they are fascists. They are absolutely for "big government", but against helping the most needy, and would rather help corporate interests that line their coffers. They claimed to care about state's rights, but, again, to serve whose interests. Conservatives always use big government for their own ends and adopt ugly nationalist hypocrisy abroad.

even though I live on the West Coast in a city with a major state university, that same anti-intellectual sentiment is present. My personal experience is total strangers looking at my work ID badge with "PhD" behind my name saying,"Oh, you have a PhD, piled higher and deeper." It long ago ceased being funny.
 
Re: a conservative columnist: the Republican party is anti-intellectual

And keep in mind their agenda: to gain control, to create a slave population, and that means elimination of the intelligentsia.
 
Re: a conservative columnist: the Republican party is anti-intellectual

EXACTLY!!! This is what they did in Nazi Germany, this is what they did after the October Revolution in Russia. Here, they'll get there too, and rather sooner than later.



In a meantime, another one busts the dust:

\\\http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama


Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama

by Christopher Buckley

The son of William F. Buckley has decided—shock!—to vote for a Democrat.

Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They’d cut off my allowance.

Or would they? But let’s get that part out of the way. The only reason my vote would be of any interest to anyone is that my last name happens to be Buckley—a name I inherited. So in the event anyone notices or cares, the headline will be: “William F. Buckley’s Son Says He Is Pro-Obama.” I know, I know: It lacks the throw-weight of “Ron Reagan Jr. to Address Democratic Convention,” but it’ll have to do.

I am—drum roll, please, cue trumpets—making this announcement in the cyberpages of The Daily Beast (what joy to be writing for a publication so named!) rather than in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column. For a reason: My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”

As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don’t have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he’s no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground. So, you’re reading it here first.

William F. Buckley was, literally, a founder of the conservative movement, and a powerful intellectual force in it for many years (here is a wikipedia article about him: \\\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley,_Jr.)

and another one:

A Conservative for Obama

Wick Allison, Editor in Chief of D Magazine in Dallas-Fort Worth

\\\http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E




So basically anyone with half a brain sees that the Republican party appeals to brainless people.
 
The fact that the Republican party appeals to the brainless wasn't ALWAYS true, though it does seem to be true that it always appealed to those with milder pathologies. I think that Lobaczewski's descriptions of how a group gets ponerized is right on the money and the Republican Party and Christianity are perfect examples.
 
aaand ... it keeps on coming

Vote for Obama

McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace.

By Christopher Hitchens

I used to nod wisely when people said: "Let's discuss issues rather than personalities." It seemed so obvious that in politics an issue was an issue and a personality was a personality, and that the more one could separate the two, the more serious one was. After all, in a debate on serious issues, any mention of the opponent's personality would be ad hominem at best and at worst would stoop as low as ad feminam.

At my old English boarding school, we had a sporting saying that one should "tackle the ball and not the man." I carried on echoing this sort of unexamined nonsense for quite some time—in fact, until the New Hampshire primary of 1992, when it hit me very forcibly that the "personality" of one of the candidates was itself an "issue." In later years, I had little cause to revise my view that Bill Clinton's abysmal character was such as to be a "game changer" in itself, at least as important as his claim to be a "new Democrat." To summarize what little I learned from all this: A candidate may well change his or her position on, say, universal health care or Bosnia. But he or she cannot change the fact—if it happens to be a fact—that he or she is a pathological liar, or a dimwit, or a proud ignoramus. And even in the short run, this must and will tell.

Hitchens is a former Trotskyite who has more recently supported Bush administration and right-wing causes (e.g. the war in Iraq). His criticism of Mother Theresa was published on SOTT, I believe.
 
What is the "Rush Administration"? Did you mean "Bush"?
 
Hildegarda said:
David Brooks is a conservative columnist who is very hard-line but pretends to be moderate in order to keep his cushy NYT position. Basically, a typical privileged high-profile hypocrite.

I agree. I usually skip his column, but I did read today's, and as usual, the sophistry he uses to pit one part of the polpulation against the other was there but this time with a twist.


Draping his argument with the Brooks label of Reason, one only has to lift the cloth a little to reveal the same naked calls for class warfare that he always makes, only this time instead of pitting Democrats against Republicans, he sets moderate democrats against liberal ones.

Apparently even Brooks has given up on the Republicans to provide any feasible economic policy so he has to create division somewhere else.

However even though he seems to recognize that McCain's economic policy is worse than Obama's, Brooks still takes aim at democrats. As the article continues, Brooks divides the democrats into two camps: the moderates and the liberals. Even as the entire economy is imploding; even as the Republican Revolution that began with Reagan is falling apart, Brooks casts no blame on the policies of the past that led the whole world into this mess, but creates a future scenario that hasn't happened yet, and assigns blame to the liberals for imagined future policies that haven't been enacted yet!!!

Where would Brooks be without liberals? What would he write about?

It's disturbing that Brooks is continuing to use the same divisive tactics that have poisoned the political and social climate for so many years.

October 14, 2008


Op-Ed Columnist
By DAVID BROOKS
We’re in the middle of a financial crisis, but most economists say there is a broader economic crisis still to come. The unemployment rate will shoot upward. Companies will go bankrupt. Commercial real estate values will decline. Credit card defaults will rise. The nonprofit sector will be hammered.

By the time the recession is in full force, Democrats will probably be running the government. Barack Obama will probably be in the White House. Democrats will have a comfortable majority in the House and will control between 56 and 60 seats in the Senate.

The party will inherit big deficits. David Leonhardt, my colleague at The Times, estimates that the deficit will sit at around $750 billion next year, or five percent of G.D.P. Democrats had promised to pay for new spending with compensatory cuts, but the economic crisis will dissolve pay-as-you-go vows. New federal spending will come in four streams.

First, there will be the bailouts. Once upon a time, there were concerns about moral hazard. But resistance to corporate bailouts is gone. If Bear Stearns and A.I.G. can get bailouts, then so can car companies, airlines and other corporations with direct links to Main Street.

Second, there will be more stimulus packages. The first stimulus package, passed early this year, was a failure because people spent only 10 percent to 20 percent of the rebate dollars and saved the rest. Martin Feldstein of Harvard calculates the package added $80 billion to the national debt while producing less than $20 billion in consumer spending.

Nonetheless, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promises another package, and it will pass.

Third, we’re in for a Keynesian renaissance. The Fed has little room to stimulate the economy, so Democrats will use government outlays to boost consumption. Nouriel Roubini of New York University argues that the economy will need a $300 billion fiscal stimulus.

Obama has already promised a clean energy/jobs program that would cost $150 billion over 10 years. He’s vowed $60 billion in infrastructure spending over the same period. He promises a range of tax credits — $4,000 a year for college tuition, up to $3,000 for child care, $7,000 for a clean car, a mortgage tax credit.

Fourth, there will be tax cuts. On Monday, Obama promised new tax subsidies to small business, which could cost tens of billions. That’s on top of his promise to cut taxes for 95 percent of American households. His tax plans aren’t as irresponsible as John McCain’s, but the Tax Policy Center still says they would reduce revenues by $2.8 trillion over the next decade.

Finally, there will be a health care plan. In 1960, health care consumed 5 percent of G.D.P. By 2025, it will consume 25 percent. In the face of these rising costs, Obama will spend billions more to widen coverage. Obama’s plan has many virtues, but the cost-saving measures are chimerical.

When you add it all up, we’re not talking about a deficit that is 5 percent of G.D.P., but something much, much, much larger.

The new situation will reopen old rifts in the Democratic Party. One the one side, liberals will argue (are already arguing) that it was deregulation and trickle-down economic policies that led us to this crisis. Fears of fiscal insolvency are overblown. Democrats should use their control of government and the economic crisis as a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make some overdue changes. Liberals will make a full-bore push for European-style economic policies.

On the other hand, the remaining moderates will argue that it was excess and debt that created this economic crisis. They will argue (are arguing) that it is perfectly legitimate to increase the deficit with stimulus programs during a recession, but that these programs need to be carefully targeted and should sunset as the crisis passes. The moderates will stress that the country still faces a ruinous insolvency crisis caused by entitlement burdens.

Obama will try to straddle the two camps — he seems to sympathize with both sides — but the liberals will win. Over the past decade, liberals have mounted a campaign against Robert Rubin-style economic policies, and they control the Congressional power centers. Even if he’s so inclined, it’s difficult for a president to overrule the committee chairmen of his own party. It is more difficult to do that when the president is a Washington novice and the chairmen are skilled political hands. It is most difficult when the president has no record of confronting his own party elders. It’s completely impossible when the economy is in a steep recession, and an air of economic crisis pervades the nation.

What we’re going to see, in short, is the Gingrich revolution in reverse and on steroids. ]/b]There will be a big increase in spending and deficits. In normal times, moderates could have restrained the zeal on the left. In an economic crisis, not a chance. The over-reach is coming. The backlash is next. [/b]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/opinion/14brooks.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I would say that the backlash has already arrived, and we're just seeing the beginning of it. Societies turn ugly when economies fail.
 
a logical development:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired

Christopher Buckley, in an exclusive for The Daily Beast, explains why he left The National Review, the magazine his father founded.

I seem to have picked an apt title for my Daily Beast column, or blog, or whatever it’s called: “What Fresh Hell.” My last posting (if that’s what it’s called) in which I endorsed Obama, has brought about a very heaping helping of fresh hell. In fact, I think it could accurately be called a tsunami. [..] In fact, the only thing the Right can’t quite decide is whether I should be boiled in oil or just put up against the wall and shot. Lethal injection would be too painless.

[..]
Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands. So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal.
[..]

My point, simply, is that William F. Buckley held to rigorous standards, and if those were met by members of the other side rather than by his own camp, he said as much. My father was also unpredictable, which tends to keep things fresh and lively and on-their-feet. He came out for legalization of drugs once he decided that the war on drugs was largely counterproductive. Hardly a conservative position. Finally, and hardly least, he was fun. God, he was fun. He liked to mix it up.

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.

Thanks, anyway, for the memories, and here’s to happier days and with any luck, a bit less fresh hell.
 
Back
Top Bottom