I got a reference to an article at Newsmax: Rush Limbaugh Lashes Out at Colin Powell 'Turncoat'
The article relates that Rush made a simple and obvious point to a lot of rank & file conservatives with whom I rarely engage. Though I once did, I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh for many years. Not always, but I often agree with his conclusions. However, I usually find his approach unproductive. It seems largely the same as it was nearly twenty years ago, when his conservative voice was emerging from dark obscurity. Conservatives were enthusiastic: “At last, someone is speaking for us!” Perhaps he mentions it now, but after much Republican electoral victory, Rush seemed still focused on a posture of victimhood. I sure hope that now, since I stopped listening and a Republican dominated government has spent the United States into oblivion, setting the table for the current economic crisis and facilitating Democrats’ blame of conservatism and attendant Democratic victories, that Limbaugh is expressing a lot of criticism of Republican governance. Though I have points of disagreement with them, my talk-radio listening is largely focused on the more reflective and constructive fare of Dennis Prager (on at the same time as Rush) and Michael Medved.
Along the way, Rush also veers into his longstanding and predictable disparagement of John McCain, including an unnecessary remark on McCain’s failure to endorse Palin for 2012. Hey, I’m a conservative who has often disagreed with McCain. But 1) I concluded it was honest disagreement on McCain’s part. And 2) McCain was not only honest, but extraordinarily solid on a few essentials; the sanctity of life and federal spending. And as for Palin, I like her but she hasn’t even approached declaring, and his declining to endorse is unnecessary because it would be plain stupid for McCain to endorse a 2012 candidate this far out. The article relates Rush’s scorn of Powell’s counsel for conservatives to…basically…become less so, and become less identified with talk-radio hosts like Rush. It finally concludes with Rush’s question of what one is to make of Powell’s counsel to disregard conservatives like he and members of his audience who supported a more moderate McCain and the counsel to moderate of someone like Powell who did not support McCain and endorsed Barack Obama. Basically, most of those who welcome Powell’s counsel to Republicans voted for Obama and were never likely to support a Republican.
Powell’s culprits are like those of Kathleen Parker and Davids Brooks and Frum. It should warn us of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. These are bright people who are provincially constrained from embracing a most critical political reality. It’s called “a base.” Without one, a political party is in deep trouble. And without those conservatives that these people spurn, The Republican Party is in for a long hibernation from power.
Showing posts with label Brooks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brooks. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Palin "A Cancer On The Republican Party?" - David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin "A Cancer On The Republican Party?" - David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
David Brooks In La-La Land
One of the few voices to be found at The New York Times who identifies himself as “conservative” is David Brooks. I was dismayed to hear Brooks’ comments at a luncheon of The Atlantic magazine, discussing Sarah Palin. Brooks commended her challenge of the Republican establishment in Alaska and conceded that Palin had performed well at the Republican National Convention and in her debate with Joe Biden, and that she was a smart and able politician. But, he called her representative of “a cancer on the Republican Party,” referring to a growing “populist” element of conservatism that has a tendency to “not only scorn liberal ideas, but to scorn ideas entirely. I think Palin has those prejudices and I think George Bush has them also.” You can see a clip at YouTube. Wow. I think David Brooks is an alright guy. But, this seems to show that the enveloping provincialism of the coasts and popular media affects not only liberals, but conservatives as well.
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
In an article this week on the same general perception, Brooks makes reference to more thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley and writers at his National Review, thirty-some years ago. But to me, he seems to have forgotten something. “A cancer on The Republican Party?” It is true that National Review was a significant element in the development of the conservative movement. I was a National Review subscriber as a teenager in the 1970’s. But, National Review was founded in the late 1950’s. Asked in the ‘70’s what politician he liked as a potential president, Buckley replied, “Oh (recent California governor), Ronald Reagan.” Reagan was elected president in 1980.
Until then, The Republican Party had largely been in the political wilderness for 48 years, and conservative ideas even longer. Now, you don’t get much more politically moribund than that. Eisenhower was not an ideological conservative (He was a WWII GENERAL, not that it would have mattered, with Congress solidly Democratic. And for that matter, neither was Reagan a conservative scholar. His was a common-sense, not an academic conservatism. Reagan voted 4 times for Franklin Roosevelt before much later coming to realize that unconstrained state intrusion was corroding the country he loved. Buckley knew that Reagan was not an egghead but an everyman. Though he was of a wealthy Northeastern legacy and an intellectual, perhaps Buckley was not so culturally cosseted as to deceive himself about a vastly different American majority. Let’s consider where the cancer lies. During the primaries, in the process of fretting the ascendancy of Huckabee, journalist Robert Novak noted that the rise of cultural conservatism had revived The Republican Party and implied the threat that one of them might one day actually seek the Republican nomination.
Reagan was an actor. In fact, we have never even run, much less elected a scholarly conservative. That includes neither Bush (both administrators, neither scholars nor statesmen). Bob Dole, and Gerald Ford. Richard Nixon was plenty bright and literate, but had some other obvious personal demons, which stymied any systematic consistency (this was clear to me as a boy: wage & price controls? Please!) long before it brought about his political demise. The only one other than Reagan who stirred me at all was Jack Kemp. Kemp became a financial player and a student of capital development (for people at all levels), but his background was as a football player.
Surely, David Books understands why Buckley or George F. Will have not been politicians. Will never has made an effort, but when Buckley was asked during his only one, what he would do if he was actually elected mayor of New York, he joked, “I’d immediately demand a recount.” Brooks seems to have his head and its ideas lodged in a dark and malodorous place. From there, perhaps he can amuse himself and some other esoterically-disposed conservatives. But, he will never have an impact on the culture, any more than he has overwhelmed the New York public through The Times.
Smart, courageous, common-sensical, plain-spoken, female, and evangelical, Sarah Palin may be the brightest hope the Republican Party will see in my lifetime. Conservatives need some egghead advisors. But philosopher rulers have existed only in a book, 2500 years ago. Brooks must have read Plato’s Republic. But in reality, he should stop dreaming and wake up and smell the coffee.
Palin, Brooks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)