David Brooks: Sarah Palin “represents a fatal cancer” to GOP
Does David Brooks even pretend to be a conservative anymore? Can we finally acknowledge that this man isn’t even remotely interested in what motivates outside the Beltway – or even inside the Beltway – conservatives? Here’s what Brooks had to say in a recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic:
[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he’d rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn’t think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. 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.
What evidence is there that Sarah Palin “rejects ideas?” This is unquestionably one of the most snobbish opinions I have ever heard expressed by Brooks, or really anyone for that matter. He displays an absolutely irrational scorn for Governor Palin based on little more than his disapproval of what she represents. I am sympathetic to Brooks’ disdain for populism, but it is Brooks himself who has been promoting what can properly be called political populism. After all, it is Brooks who has done nothing but kiss Douthat and Salam’s asses over their “Party of Sam’s Club” thesis. It is Brooks who has continually called for a watering down of conservative principles over the years to the point where the views he upholds are barely distinguishable from moderate liberalism. Palin, on the other hand, expresses traditional conservative values – the values of Reagan and Buckley – more than anyone else currently running for President or Vice President, and it isn’t even close. In fact, other than Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter, she is arguably the most prominent traditional conservative to appear on the presidential scene in this cycle.
What’s even worse is that Brooks derides Palin’s lack of experience, and adds:
He explained, “The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there’s no time to think or make decisions.”
But yet he goes on to praise Barack Obama, who makes Sarah Palin look like Henry Clay in terms of experience. And why is Brooks so infatuated with Obama:
Obama has the great intellect. I was interviewing Obama a couple years ago, and I’m getting nowhere with the interview, it’s late in the night, he’s on the phone, walking off the Senate floor, he’s cranky. Out of the blue I say, ‘Ever read a guy named Reinhold Niebuhr?’ And he says, ‘Yeah.’ So i say, ‘What did Niebuhr mean to you?’ For the next 20 minutes, he gave me a perfect description of Reinhold Niebuhr’s thought, which is a very subtle thought process based on the idea that you have to use power while it corrupts you. And I was dazzled, I felt the tingle up my knee as Chris Matthews would say.
Yeah, that’s right: Obama can regurgitate what an obscure political philosopher thought. Sure he also wants to provide federal funding for abortion, has no desire to protect children who survive abortion, promotes a socialist economic agenda, and formulated his political ideas at the knees of radicals and domestic terrorists, but hey – he reads Reinhold Niebuhr. What a guy.
Excuse me if I don’t find this all that persuasive. Then again, Brooks is also a guy who earlier in the interview said that John McCain and Barack Obama were “the two best candidates we’ve had in a long time.” Really? These guys are the best that we’ve had to offer in a “long time?” If your definition of a “long time” is four years, then yeah, maybe Brooks has a point. Otherwise, he just may be senile.
Conservatives have often fretted that other conservatives who go to work for institutions like the New York Times might “go native.” I don’t think we have to wonder anymore about David Brooks.
(cross-posted at the CrankyCon)
Brooks is an historicist, totally infatuated with the present and the imminent thrill it gives him to believe that his consciousness is coursing through and with the inevitable march of the One. Brooks doesn’t love ideas. He loves to be around people who love to be around people who love ideas.
Of course, I’ve never met Brooks, and I have never read Brooks, except by accident not knowing it was Brooks. But that means I’m just as good an authority on him as he is of Palin.
BTW, it’s not “phone book” anymore. It’s “contact list.” How quaint of Brooks not to notice.
I’m as anti-elitist as the next guy who’s drunk in a seedy bar, but I have to admit that when I hear Palin talk I don’t feel reassured. Maybe it’s because she has a nasally accent that grates on me. Maybe it’s the stupid homilies. Maybe it’s because she seems like a 100 watt smile with a nickel noggin. Whatever the case, she often makes my head hurt.
This post seems to spend a lot of time attacking Obama (easy target) rather than addressing the concern about Palin. Just because Obama (like Hillary) is too smart for his own good, doesn’t mean that Palin isn’t a low watt bulb. And just because smart = wrong in this case doesn’t mean dumb = right. I’m not calling Palin dumb, but I do get the feeling that she’s a lot of enthusiasm backed by a certain naïveté and I’d be lying if that didn’t concern me. Not that it matters a fig in the long run.
Brooks is a careerist pure and simple. He believes that the Democrats will be in power for a generation and he is leaving ship to be with the winners. Good riddance.
Brooks is Marks Shields’s abused girlfriend. She (Brooks) has low self-esteem and self-respect and puts out for attention.
“What evidence is there that Sarah Palin ‘rejects ideas?’†Perhaps her inquiry of the librarian in Wasilla about how to go about banning books.
Perhaps her inquiry of the librarian in Wasilla about how to go about banning books.
And that, boys and girls, is a nice illustration of someone who rejects the truth.
In John’s universe Larry Flynt is more of an idea person than Sarah Palin.
Just out of curiosity, suppose someone donated a book to the Wasilla library that was a manual on how 10 year old boys can seduce their 8 year old sisters. Would it be acceptable for the Wasilla librarian to reject that donation, or is that book banning? Better yet, print out the raunchiest stories on the internet you can find–ones involving goats, children, Democrats–and then bind the stories. Then take that bound volume and try to donate it to your local elementary school library. I betcha that it won’t be accepted. In that case, you can try to get in the banned book case for the ALA’s “BAnned Book Month.” I betcha they won’t accept it there either. Then, you’ll have to have a separate glass case just for books banned from the banned book case.
Now, how would an “idea guy” answer these sorts of moral and political conundra? Repeating the mantra “don’t ever censor, ever” is not an idea let alone an argument. It is a cognitive fart that just smells bad to the intellect.
Book banning: according to FactCheck.org:
She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.
Of course, you always have to check your sources checking your sources, http://volokh.com/posts/1222201928.shtml, but there it is.
And, of course FB, if you’re going to argue from the point of moral relativism, I could always say that I’d rather my five year old son see a book about molesters and abusers at that age so he can ask questions rather than finding out about dirty old men when he’s sixteen and buzzing hard from his first few beers and runs into the dirty old man while walking home.
I’m just saying.
I don’t really even know what he’s talking about when he says that Palin rejects “ideas”.
Certainly every position is backed up by an idea, is it not? Palin is pro-life because she has an “idea” that every human life is sacred. Obama is pro-choice because he believes that individual freedom is a more crucial idea than protection of nascent life.
If Brooks thinks McCain and Obama are the best candidates we’ve had for a long time, he’s definitely cemented his idiocy.
DM – you said “Obama is pro-choice because he believes that individual freedom is a more crucial idea than protection of nascent life.”
Do you have a source for that?
Fireduck,
I was just imputing a common reason for the pro-choice position to Obama, but what else could it be?
Anyway, the point is that both are basing their positions on “ideas”, they don’t just decide their position by flipping a coin.
DM -
Hmmmm…sometimes I wonder if people actually are flipping a coin.
As to the “common reason,” that’s actually not what I see as the most common reason (yes – anecdotal testimony on my part, but I’m going to follow up to see if my personal experience is correct) is that the pro-choice position is based upon a fundamental disagreement as to what is meant by “life,” and when you can consider a fetus a human being. The argument being that, up to a certain point, the rights of the full-blown human (the mother) outweigh the rights (if any) of the potential human growing in the womb. There are, of course, some who believe that until the child is born its rights are outweighed, but most people that I’m aware of draw a moral line somewhere around where the fetus can survive on its own.
So, my real point is, before we attribute a rationality to Obama that he believes that individual freedom trumps the rights of nascent life, let’s be at least intellectually honest and not attribute a moral stand to him that we have no proof for. I may not agree with the guy, but I’m not going to fall into the trap of attributing ideas to him that can’t fairly be attributed to him.
Fireduck,
the pro-choice position is based upon a fundamental disagreement as to what is meant by “life,†and when you can consider a fetus a human being. The argument being that, up to a certain point, the rights of the full-blown human (the mother) outweigh the rights (if any) of the potential human growing in the womb.
Well, if that’s the case, we can just refer them to a biology textbook. Human life begins at conception; that much is scientifically clear. Any point other than conception at which human lives are judged to transform into “human beings” is simply arbitrary.
One could also bring up the “hunter in the woods” argument. If you are not absolutely certain whether the rustling in the bush is a human being or not, you may BY NO MEANS shoot. Similarly, unless we can be absolutely certain that a fetus is NOT a human being, we may not permit abortion.
In fact, these arguments should be brought up to Obama, who says that the question of when human life begins is “above his pay grade.”
DM – “Well, if that’s the case, we can just refer them to a biology textbook. Human life begins at conception; that much is scientifically clear. Any point other than conception at which human lives are judged to transform into “human beings†is simply arbitrary.”
Huh? First, there is absolutely no ‘scientific clarity’ to that position. Science has struggled with the definition of ‘human life’ for as long as there’s been a scientific process. And, the ‘moment of conception’ defined scientifically is nothing more than a transfer of genetic material that basically kick starts a cellular division and growth process. Defining whether or not that blastomere is “human” becomes a question of faith simply because there is absolutely no characteristic that it has that can be identified as ‘human’ with the exception of cellular structure, dna, and the like. In other words, if you stumbled across it on the street (assuming you could see it), you would never identify it with what you call ‘human’ in your day to day existence. “Life”? Perhaps, but not human.
So, there’s the conundrum. If you believe that the moment of conception is where a human is imbued with a soul, that creates a human characteristic to the collection of cells and thus makes the taking of that human’s life forbidden. But to say that “human life begins at conception; that much is scientifically clear” is just plain wrong. Its a question of what is meant by “human,” not what you mean by “life.”
And speaking of alternate universes (sort of back to where this thread started) what IF it was Huckabee and not McCain…? http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/09/what-if-huckabee-were-the-nominee.aspx
Fireduck,
I’m certainly not a biologist, but I think I can say with confidence that it is the specifically human DNA that makes humans human, and the specifically monkey DNA that makes a monkey a monkey.
A new life comes into existence at conception (once in a while it can even be more than one life). The species of that life can be determined by the DNA (if the womb in which the life is residing didn’t already make it obvious).
Again, scientifically the nascent life we are discussing is a member of the human species from conception; that is a fact. Any attempt to define any other developmental stage at which the human life is worthy of rights is completely subjective.
In other words, trace the developmental process of any of us back, and you will necessarily find it begins at conception.
“Defining whether or not that blastomere is “human†becomes a question of faith simply because there is absolutely no characteristic that it has that can be identified as ‘human’ with the exception of cellular structure, dna, and the like.”
Classic example of a question-begging argument. Fireduck argues that the blastosyst is not a human being because it can’t be identified as human. That’s like saying that the Lakers are the best team because no team is better.
The problem is that a human being is a whole organism and not a collection of parts. Because the human loses and gains parts as it develops through time, it is the whole being that makes it human. Thus, a blatosyst of the species homo sapiens is an individual organism with the nature of rational animal, since it intrinsically ordered to bring to maturity those properties that it has by nature. So, a blastocyst is not a potential human being; it is a human being with great potential.
If you are identical to your embryonic self, and you are a rights-bearing entity now, you were a rights-bearing entity when you were an embryo.
Ok, so I am from the area you all hate so much, California. Out here, we think brains are more important that visioning ourselves having drinks with the candidates. You may find this message tone hostile, but hey, that is all I have ever read in my adult life about CA coming from the South.
When life begins doesn’t really matter in my world view, especially when 25% of all mammals are going extinct, and we are a mammal. I am tired of wedge heads influence in deciding elections, in which we get “saddled” with twits like Bush.
Why is it so offensive to have someone more intelligent than us in the White House? Having intellect is a good thing. Having a broad perspective is a good thing. The game that is being played out there ladies and gentlemen is chess, not tic-tac-toe.
Obama is a good pick because of two primary reasons: 1) his intellectual “capacity” to reason and connect the dots 2) his command of team building and staffing the right people for the job. This is what leadership is all about.
Have a drink with your peers and feel free to piss on CA, but let’s put a brain in the White House and give our Country a fighting chance.
I’ve lived in California. California is the home of friends of mine. Sir, you are no Californian.
Ha! At least that is funny.
I should have been more specific. Born and raised in Northern California, Silicon Valley to be exact.
Not sure where you got #2 on your list. Obama has never been in charge of anything important in his life (other than his presidential campaign), so not sure where you get his command of team building and staffing the right people.
I think Mark Shea basically has it right. Obama is a blank cipher onto which people can project their hopes and dreams.
“When life begins doesn’t really matter in my world view, especially when 25% of all mammals are going extinct, and we are a mammal.”
Just as long as you aren’t being one of the people being put to death. If you were, I think that fact would put a fatal dent in your world view.
FB -
You said that my statements with regards classifying what is “human” versus what is “life” is
“Classic example of a question-begging argument. Fireduck argues that the blastosyst is not a human being because it can’t be identified as human. That’s like saying that the Lakers are the best team because no team is better.” And that “The problem is that a human being is a whole organism and not a collection of parts.”
Your argument fails in reduction (and I really, honestly, am not sure if the Lakers are, in fact, human, but even if they are I confess to missing your point there entirely…..) because, if you are correct, a random collection of cells taken from my spleen is “human” and identical to the whole. I would think that I don’t need to point out how that is wrong. Just because it has the DNA doesn’t make it the animal. At some point, the description “human” fails…the question is where does the description fail? I am NOT identical in any readily identifiable manner to my embryonic self…with the possible exception of my soul. Even as something as simple as potential…I do not have the potential to grow into a full sized creature that has gross physical characteristics far removed from what I currently possess…so even on that level the blastocyst is not me and I am not it.
So…the only real cutoff that I can see is that it depends upon where God decided to give me my soul. And that, my friend, is the million dollar question, isn’t it?
Fireduck,
Your answer is a non-sequitur.
As FB said, “So, a blastocyst is not a potential human being; it is a human being with great potential.” A random collection of cells from the spleen does not have life on its own. It does not develop into anything else. It does not have any potential; it is simply part of a whole.
A blastocyst, on the other hand, is simply a part of the life cycle of the human being itself, a life cycle that goes all the way from conception to natural death. Similarly, a caterpillar is not identical in any “readily identifiable” manner to a butterfly, but they are one and the same entity.
We’re dealing with scientific facts here, not opinions.
Conjectures about the soul are not needed, though the “hunter in the woods” argument can still be applied, for those who believe that we have souls. (The soul might be implanted as early as conception, therefore since we have no way to know, we must protect the human life, in case it already has a soul)
Scientific fact: the blastocyst is a parasite that has no potential apart from its host. It cannot survive on its own. It cannot grow on its own. It cannot divide on its own. Without the host, it will die an undifferentiated set of cells, no matter how much we want it to be a tiny little human.
So, because the biology of the blastocyst damns it to unindividualized existence, we next ask about the state of the soul; i.e., when did it become human? Or has it? Was my soul defining my human existence granted to me at (or before, as some of us believe) the moment of conception? Or does the soul come later?
The caterpillar/butterfly analogy has problems as a result of the fact that neither is a stage that cannot survive on its own. (Although I HAVE seen some indication that recent work is suggesting that, at least in some cases, the butterfly is actually a separate (!) embryo that doesn’t gestate until the chrysalis stage, and feeds off the dying caterpillar. If so, biologically fascinating and changes the whole thing……) But I digress.
Biologically one organism grows or morphs into the second, but we have no basis for identifying both as the same ‘entity’ except that they follow in a biological chain of events. And, not helping things much is the definition (OED) of “entity:” “a thing which has its own distinct and independent existence.”
In sum, you are confusing scientific facts with interpretations of defining features. We can argue all day long as to what “entity” means in the context of a human embryo, but it is scientific fact that a human embryo (at least at the blastocyst stage) does NOT have its own “distinct and independent” existence, if for no other reason than it cannot be “independent” biologically speaking. Hence my question: when DID God give me my soul?
Although I can hear my inner blastocyst screaming in indignation…….