Conservative columnist David Brooks: “[Bill Buckley] thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning…. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I’m afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.”
Advertisement
I’m defintely a Brooks disciple as his brand of populist conservatism dovetails closely with my own beliefs. I think he just has the courage to say what many of us on the right think, which is that Palin was a political move, not a policy move. If McCain gets elected, it will be his cabinet appointments which will signal the direction he intends to go. Lieberman, Graham, etc.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 9, 2008, 10:16 amit’s a political move that doesn’t seem to be working among groups that weren’t already in the bag for mccain.
and i have always thought the republican party needs to take responsibility for the irresponsibility inherent in their biggest marketing idea that learnin’ is doggone too fancy for “true” americans.
Posted by didionsmommy | October 9, 2008, 1:43 pmDon’t you think Hillary Clinton-style populism also plays into that same notion? Personally I think a philosphy which shifts personal responsibility away from individuals and towards the government is a gross underestimation and devaluation of human potential.
There’s also the anti-intellectual slant of pop culture i.e. the Chris Rock, books-are-kryptonite analogy. That’s the same pop culture that has been very good to the Left.
I think the anti-intellectual rhetoric has been an unfortunate by-product of our regrettable association with evangelicals. As you know, it is my sincere hope that relationship is going to come to an end.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | October 9, 2008, 2:13 pmBrooks has been on this for a while, but the right can’t easily abandon anti-intellectualism without moving significantly towards the center.
One reason is that mainstream culture lags intellectual culture, and intellectual culture has been steadily moving away from religion and individualism. It’s no secret that modern intellectuals (defined loosely as the highly educated and especially intelligent who have spent time considering political issues) lean to the left. National Review even acknowledges this, though they do argue that there are reasons to suspect that an intellectual consensus is often wrong. Anything that increases respect for and deference to the opinions of intellectuals is bad for the modern right, regardless of whether or not intellectuals are correct. And, because the people recognized as intellectuals tend to be on the left, it’s in the right’s interest to discredit all intellectuals, even if there are some that would be sympathetic to them.
Posted by Gotchaye | October 9, 2008, 2:45 pmGoing along with PC’s sentiments, I would argue that, on the right, the most deleterious consequence of abandoning intellectualism is that religious fundamentalism fills the vacuum. Look at which side of the divide the supporters of creationist pseudoscience are on, it’s a disgrace to conservatism. The only caveat I would offer is that evangelical does not necessarily mean fundamentalist, although sadly there is a very high correlation between the two.
Posted by James F | October 9, 2008, 4:08 pm