Conservative Brooks Explains How Republicans Lost Intellectuals

[Pangloss]

David Brooks is the New York Times' token moderate conservative columnist. This week he takes a look at how the Republicans have lost intellectuals. I think he's spot-on with this analysis. In fact it's gotten so stark that most young people today probably see the idea of "intellectual Republican" as being about as alien as the idea of a "conservative Democrat".

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

He goes on to talk about how Palin brings out the worst in this, and gets into how the Republicans have now lost the working class as well, because of poor policy. It wraps up with this gem:

 

And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away.

 

---

line[/hr]

BTW, it's not really directly related, but I thought I'd just mention that if you get a chance check out Maureen Dowd's column this week as well. It's written in Latin, aimed I suppose at intellectuals, and she has some hillarious bits in there about Sarah Palin and "lipsticka in porcam", and comparing John McCain to "V" (think about it). VERY funny stuff.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12dowd.html?em

Edited October 13, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

Well the anti-intellectualism thing certainly has gone too far. I always figured the legitimacy in rejecting capitulation to the intellectual class had to do with a focus on preference over a focus on performance. Intellectuals have a tendency to concentrate on performance and efficiency without as much regard for the principles of the framework.

 

For instance, investing efforts in creating a smooth medical system without reverance to freedom of choice. Or intellectualizing gun control without as much thought given to the structure of the people's fundamental medium to check their government.

 

Not trying to start a gun or medical debate, just making the point that there's a legitimate reason to reject too much higher intellect. Clearly that has inflated to a absolutely stupid level.

[iNow]

But people who are fat, lazy, and religious are easier to lean/move en masse toward what you want than are people who are active, academic, and critical.

 

Sorry for the broad generalizations above. When painting with such a wide brush details surely get missed.

[ParanoiA]

It's the ole pendulum swinging routine. Too far one way and then too far the other.

[bascule]

Intellectuals have a tendency to concentrate on performance and efficiency without as much regard for the principles of the framework.

 

What?

 

I think intellectuals have a tendency to rationalize their principles, rather than believing them blindly. I certainly don't think they're unprincipled or believe principles should take a backseat to anything such as performance and efficiency.

 

For instance, investing efforts in creating a smooth medical system without reverance to freedom of choice.

 

Freedom of choice is a great principle, but what if your freedom to choose comes at the cost of another person's life or health?

 

There's certainly a utilitarian calculation to be made there, which encompasses both principles and efficiency. I think what intellectuals have a capacity to do is weigh those sorts of things simultaneously, whereas a more ignorant view will generally stem from a single principle or viewpoint about how the world should operate.

[Pangloss]

I know a few intellectuals who are also pretty good at using people's stupidity as an excuse to force their own morality upon them.

 

 

I think intellectuals have a tendency to rationalize their principles, rather than believing them blindly.

 

Perhaps a tendency, but for me one of the most powerful things about the Politics subforum at SFN is the way it casts an ugly glare of hypocrisy on people who ostensibly govern themselves by intelligence rather than blind faith. I've seen perfectly well-reasoned, logical people discussing advanced physics and mathematics, then trot right on over here and espouse the most ridiculous conspiracy theory one can imagine.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Pangloss

[ParanoiA]

I think intellectuals have a tendency to rationalize their principles, rather than believing them blindly. I certainly don't think they're unprincipled or believe principles should take a backseat to anything such as performance and efficiency.

 

Freedom of choice is a great principle, but what if your freedom to choose comes at the cost of another person's life or health?

 

Those aren't pejorative statements bascule, in and of themselves. I'm just saying that intellectuals tend to have their eye on function over preference. It would be easy for me to launch into another offense on rationalizing around principles, but that's not the point of my post.

 

An intellectual is more likely to focus their attention on high performace, high efficiency, top notch function of say, Healthcare, with less emphasis and concern for what kind of government that creates. Whereas the idea behind rejecting the intellectual is about attention and focus on maintaining a preference for capitalism; creating a capitalist system, with less emphasis and concern for what kind of performance that gives us.

 

And I think that's a legitimate resistance to intellectualism. Not a ban, a healthy resistance. Otherwise there's a potential monopoly of class and elitism.

 

As iNow says, it's a broad brush and appropriate here since we're speaking in generalities.

[bascule]

As iNow says, it's a broad brush and appropriate here since we're speaking in generalities.

 

Well, I guess I have a different generality than you. I think intellectuals tend to weigh all options when making a decision. As for the subgeniuses, well, their approach to decision making is likely far less methodical.

 

Oh, and P.S.: Bob loves you

[ParanoiA]

Oh, and P.S.: Bob loves you

 

Yet another fan whose love I cannot return.