We once had a car radio that got terrific reception and sounded great, except when it went staticky and then cut out, going silent for awhile.
That radio came to mind as we read David Brooks’ column, “Why Experience Matters,” today, only what went staticky and cut out was making sense, not audio.
Brooks offers valid and interesting insight about how traditional conservatives prized “classical education, hard-earned knowledge, experience and prudence.” He then notes the existence of a “separate, populist strain” who are dismissive of book learning, preferring “practical knowledge” instead.
The elitists favor sophistication, but the common-sense folk favor simplicity. The elitists favor deliberation, but the populists favor instinct.”
If you’re comfortable branding people who actually exhibit common sense elitist, a neocon fetish, so far so good. But then Brooks lapses into static.
(Alaska Gov. Sarah) Palin is the ultimate small-town renegade rising from the frontier to do battle with the corrupt establishment. Her followers take pride in the way she has aroused fear, hatred and panic in the minds of the liberal elite. The feminists declare that she’s not a real woman because she doesn’t hew to their rigid categories. People who’ve never been in a Wal-Mart think she is parochial because she has never summered in Tuscany.”
What rot. Brooks writes for the N.Y. Times but apparently hadn’t read its highly relevant story: “Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes.” The more we learn about Palin, the more we find the label “corrupt establishment” applies to her.
As for Brooks’ other charges, come on. Fear, panic and hatred? Brooks is being a drama queen. Democrats, independents and some in the media are pointing out how poorly qualified and ill-suited she is to be a heartbeat away from becoming president. This is vetting, criticism and political opposition. Panic and hatred have nothing to do with it.
We’ve yet to hear anyone say Palin isn’t a real woman and challenge Brooks to show proof anyone has said that. As for his nonsense about people who’ve never been in a Wal-Mart, what has he been smoking?
Having thus abandoned all pretense of serious discussion, Brooks proceeds to “cut out” completely.
Look at the condescension and snobbery oozing from elite quarters, her backers say. Look at the endless string of vicious, one-sided attacks in the news media. This is what elites produce. This is why regular people need to take control.
And there’s a serious argument here. In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.”
Having reduced what started off as a fairly interesting take on a serious matter to laughable blather, Brooks brings in a reinforcement for the coup de gras.
When it comes to American history, Hayward shows himself to be an ignoramus (probably a hiring requirement at the Weakly Stranded). In fact, the nation’s founders were elitists who saw to it only landed gentry were eligible to vote, and senators were elected not by popular vote but by state legislatures. Then, there was that slavery thing.
Our first presidents were all way upper class, until you get to Andrew Jackson, who was a general officer and could fairly be described as “rough and rooted.” Hayward, go soak your empty head.
Then, Brooks surprisingly kicks into lucidity mode before again lapsing into static.
I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.
And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.
What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events — the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.”
Funny, but four years too late Brooks makes an excellent case for why John Kerry was eminently better qualified to become president than George W. Bush was suited to remain in power. And, note how perfectly you can substitute the “nuance” about which Kerry was scorned for the “prudence” Brooks holds in such high regard.
Surprisingly, after all this mish-mosh, like our old car radio coming back on loud and clear, Brooks comes to a sensible conclusion.
Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.
Well, almost a sensible conclusion. As we said, the more we learn about Palin, the more it becomes clear that if she were to destroy a corrupt establishment, it wouldn’t be long before she replaced it with a corrupt establishment she could call her own.
For example, try to imagine the queen of Palin’s high school prom as secretary of Education or the captain of the basketball team running the Pentagon.
A final note. In discussing the value of experience and the quality of prudence, Brooks leaves out three things vital to excellent leadership: honesty, integrity and openmindedness. Dick Cheney is one of the most experienced men in Washington, but has shown himself to be utterly lacking in all three characteristics.
From what we’re learning about Palin, she falls short in all three as well.
After reading the linked NYT’s article, I like Palin even better.
‘“She was honest and forthright,” said Jay Kerttula, a former Democratic state senator from Palmer.’
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. If you want to criticize the rare reformer like Palin, we end up with a government where every job is a sinecure.
I’d say Brooks is more on target than you realize. The Palin criticism is largely one sided, and “she has aroused fear, hatred and panic in the minds of the liberal elite.” Just check the blogosphere.
The more I find out about Palin, the more Godawful she is. She’s power-mad, vengeful, secretive and she surrounds herself with yesmen who keep her sheltered and secluded. She’s prettier than Dumbya, but other than that I don’t see much difference.
I think you’re on the right track, Tom. I think she may be easily portrayed in the media as some kind of wholesome Little House on the Prairie family values evangelical feisty reformer type, the reality of it is still to be seen. Choosing such a relative unknown so soon before an election? If she and McCain get elected, the real vetting process won’t be finished until well after January of 2009.
If Palin ended up being president (god forbid that should ever happen) she might try to “reform” a few things, but I think Republicans “reforming” their own party is what really needs to happen. If that doesn’t happen, we just get the same nasty neoconservative Republicans in high places, being divisive, keeping Congress from functioning, directing devastating misadventures both foreign and domestic, and in the name of what… rugged individualism? “Family values” (whatever in HELL that really means). Thumbing their noses at the left?
It is if a bunch of evil children, and not necessarily talented and gifted ones, is running America these days. If they don’t get their way they threaten, tantrum and bully. The collective cranial capacity isn’t there for using reason anymore… the GOP has dumbed things down by devaluing what it once championed: civil discourse, taking into account the lives of individuals, and fostering a sense of positivity… the list of what the modern Republican party has abandoned in the last 50 years just goes on and on.
“For example, try to imagine the queen of Palin’s high school prom as secretary of Education or the captain of the basketball team running the Pentagon.”
Or First Dude in the White House… sigh…
I’m confused because I shop at Wal*Mart and I’ve visited Tuscany in the summer.
As for choosing Ms. Palin as a VP nominee, the two words that leap to my mind are: Harriet Miers.
Careful, Jeff. As a scientist and writer, you’ve got two strikes. Next you’ll be telling us you’ve nibbled brie while sipping chardonnay. That could result in an unpleasant visit from the Anti-elitist Flying Squad.
Oh, and those two words are eerily fitting.
snave wrote: “Republicans ‘reforming’ their own party is what really needs to happen.”
Truer words were never written. Throwing the bums out should start with a November housecleaning of historical thoroughness covering the White House and both houses of Congress. It should then continue within the Republican Party. Unfortunately, there’s virtually no chance of that happening.
There is quite a cast of CEO characters from the Obama campaign that are deeply involved in the recent meltdown of the mortgage markets et al, people such as Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines. Raines received almost a $100 million payday from Fannie Mae. It is going to be fun to watch all this twist in the wind while the Democrats claim their usual outraged innocence.
I’m done for, SW–I like brie, I hate Chardonnay, and I’ve always wanted to be elite but have never had enough money, alas.
As Reagonomics crumbles (it’s hard to see all those floating boats beneath the rubble, isn’t it?) and the hens of Republican deregulation try to roost on a very small perch, the revisionism begins. Just yesterday I heard that this financial nightmare was “decades in the making”. Can we just end it now and go ahead and blame [Bill] Clinton & Vince Foster?
Fortunately the “fundamentals are strong”. I suspect that free-market forces would work if we could really give them a chance. Of course, this star-crossed affair seems to be working out quite well as a pyramid scheme to transfer money from now-out-of-work financial workers to their CEO bosses gently awaft on their golden parachutes.
How about: Harriet Miers — with lipstick.
RSF, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman this evening debunked any significant Raines connection with Obama or his campaign. Sorry to reduce your already meager schadenfreude ration.
Jeff, you hate Chardonnay? I can understand it not being a favorite, but I’m surprised it would raise that strong a dislike.
Good news about being an elitist, though. Don’t sweat the money. I’m told that if you’ll just listen to Barbra Streisand (music and political preferences), steer clear of Wal-Marts and make Starbuck’s a habit, you’re in.
>>>>RSF, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman this evening debunked any significant Raines connection with Obama or his campaign.
Now there is some objectivity.
If GW Bush had as much contact with Raines as Obama has had, you would give us the usual spin about Bush consorting with criminals. But when your guy Obama is involved, we get the downplay. You like to pretend you are objective, but just drop the pretense.
RSF, according to the MSNBC report, Raines visited Obama’s Senate office twice and didn’t see Obama either time. He’s evidently had some involvement in Obama’s campaign, but by all accounts has never held any key position or been part of Obama’s inner circle.
I’m sure Bush didn’t have time to be involved with Raines, what with Jack Abramoff being such a White House regular.