Once again, David Brooks plays conservatives for chumps

David Brooks, Palin hater, former conservative, has diagnosed the true infection that resulted in the cancer of Palin: anti-intellectualism. Conservatives just aren’t smart enough to govern. “The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.”

At least he admits one important fact: “Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. Apparently conservatives should simple accept the status quo: the smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.”

So what happened? For completely unexplained reasons, conservatives are no longer willing to acknowledge the superiority of liberal theology and have turned against it. They are not longer willing to bear the completely justified insults and denigrations. They no longer want to support traitorous philosophies by providing paychecks for Ward Churchill, William Ayers, and their fellow travelers. Suicide, I tell you, it’s suicide.

Brooks drank the koolaid that his superior education that landed him his position on the NYT editorial board. He may be “more Republican” than many of his colleagues, but he still believes in the divine right of Harvard graduates to rule the masses. Preparation for leadership requires “constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking”, but alas, all of those critical components have been sacrificed before the constant touch.

The problem, of course, is that the definitions of “constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking” are established by those who want to destroy traditional Americans. Religiosity, self-reliance, morality are bad. “Historical understanding” is the same Marxist interpretation of history without the brutality of Russian dictatorship. “Sophisticated thinking” is whatever philosophy a college professor wants to force on the sheep in his classroom, and push down to the public schools. The fact that these philosophies are basically a denial of fundamental rights of Americans is unimportant to Brooks. We should all accept the superiority of our betters and move on. Constant reading is a good thing. We all agree. However, content sort of bothers some of us hoi polloi. (I would rule out reading the NY Times, for example.)

It is interesting that the two examples of intellectual conservatism provided by Brooks contradict his premise: Lincoln and Churchill. Neither was particularly educated. Lincoln struggled to complete law school, which was considered a trade school in his day, and certainly not classical education. Lincoln’s brilliance came from some inherent quality that was distinct from any education.

Likewise Churchill. Churchill decided that educational pursuits were not for him. He was not a particularly gifted student. He decided to pursue journalism, but unlike Brooks, a particularly patriotic, jingoistic journalism. He was also a soldier. Churchill was well-read, well-traveled, and very sensitive to the issues of his day, but he was considered just as dangerous by the elites of his day as he is by the elites of our day. Perhaps Brooks could venture a small guess about the removal Churchill from school curriculums in the UK. Probably has nothing to do with the fact that the elites of today want nothing to do with a man who believed in the indomitable spirit of his Anglo-Saxon brethren and their right and duty to oppose tyranny. Apparently the 20th century is simply to full to mention everything, so Churchill is out.

Brooks simply presents the bankrupt philosophies of his employers, and puts a more conservative wrapper around them.