The Unbearable Elitism of David Brooks
Despite the insulting and patronizing tone of the entire piece, it is this paragraph that truly sums up how clueless this man is about the tea party movement. He calls tea party members uneducated and ignorant, yet he knows absolutely nothing about the real thing and is himself ignorant and misinformed. He relies on the left-wing media’s portrayal of the tea parties as “fringe” instead of doing true research.
Ultimately he believes that the tea party movement is only “against” and for nothing. If he attended, read, or watched anything from the tea party movement he would realize that they are for quite a few things. They are “for” the Constitution, the rule of law, the free market, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. In short, they are for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Brooks is not alone in his beliefs, but he has done one useful thing: he has summed up the “inside the Beltway” big government attitude of those who think they are better than the vast majority of Americans.
The sad thing is that he will no doubt take great pride in the fact that all those tea party members and supporters will take exception to his rant. He will claim that they just don’t know he is right because they are “uneducated” and unable to grasp that what he and his ilk are trying to do is for their own good.
The following from Brooks is truly despicable:
If there is a double-dip recession, a long period of stagnation, a fiscal crisis, a terrorist attack or some other major scandal or event, the country could demand total change, creating a vacuum that only the tea party movement and its inheritors would be in a position to fill.
Yes, he, like many on the far left, is claiming that the tea party movement is akin to the Nazi movement in the 1930s. Never mind the fact that the tea party movement makes perfectly clear that it strives to return to the values of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Because it is “popular” it must be populist and no better than the rabble that followed Hitler.
Americans are fed up with those in D.C. because they routinely fail to deal with the problems at hand. They fail to protect the country from attack. They fail to reduce taxation and regulation. They give bailouts to failing companies. They fail to protect the rule of law.
What Brooks fails to see is that most Americans would take the wisdom of the Founding Fathers over the wisdom of David Brooks and his ilk.
Leave out abortion because it is so intertwined with religion, and the real puzzle is why the educated classes believe the nonsense that they believe.
On climate change, it is increasingly clear that the elites are dupes. See Climate Skeptic’s fine presentation at http://www.climate-movie.com/Climate%20Presentation%20Annotated%201-1-2010.pdf.
On gun control, see Judge Kozinski:
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”
http://notabug.com/kozinski/silveira_v_lockyer (Dissent)
That really sums it up.
I am too stupid and illiterate to comment on this matter.
I do live near the Appalachians and I do have serious dental problems.
The home is of course full of guns and Bibles.
Sad, very sad.
And of course if you read one or two posts on my blog you will see how ignorant I am.
Brooks and Gergen call themselves conservatives but they are not.
if you figure them out, and why Jews vote democrat you will understand how indoctrinated the population of the USA is.
the government should not be the answer to all problems unless you want all to be a problem.
I do not see much hope for the future as this tide will not be going off shore any time soon.
It’s 2010 and we’re pissed.
The voters are coming.
some times doing nothing is the correct thing to do.
Brooks is as you point out an elitist and useful idiot.
if I’m stuck on a island I would want to be with tea party goers not some idiot elitist.
the problem I have this movement is that they ‘hate’ their opposition so much. Good people can disagree on important issues, that does not make them the enemy. We are all Americans and need to work together. We can disagree, and in fact we should. But we have to be able to talk to one another.
United we stand, divided we fall.
It is painfully obvious that Mr. Brooks equates “educated class” with “people like me (i.e. Brooks)”, and that “educated” in this instance carries some sort of positive connotation.
If he’s an example of the “educated class”, “educated” doesn’t appear to possess a great deal of value.
It would help to dispel the notions of ignorance if you were to learn what socialism is, and stop using it to mean any government program you oppose.
Shut up.
I hate you.
The cluelessness of the “New Class” elites is just a special case of a general phenomenon laid out brilliantly by Eric Raymond: the collapse of elite authority due to escalating complexity. For a summary see:
http://spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/eric-raymond-on-escalating-complexity-and-the-collapse-of-elite-authority/
I interpreted Brooks’ term “educated class” to mean leftists. And, since I am a person who believes in “arguments that are deeply rooted in American history”, I am against these people.
I order to get through college and medical school I had to work. Fortunately, my father was able to help me get work in the oil field as he was an engineer. Before I started he gave me some good advice. He said that the people I was going to meet and work with were not well educated and had not had the schooling that I had experienced. But, they had more knowledge than I would ever be able to accumulate and to listen to them. This saved my life more than once. I have applied it to all my daily activity sense so that I do not feel that I am that knowledgable and feel I can learn from others. Maybe this man needs a little of that insight.
You forget, Brooks is one of the Bobos in paradise he so aptly wrote about, you know, those bourgeois bohemians and intellectual leaders of the baby boomer generation? They grew up on Orwell’s 1984 and LSD and now as grown ups are having difficulties dealing with predator drones launched against the East by the Western Alliance. It’s a little difficult to live out Maslov’s higher hierarchy of needs with a knife to your throat. And then you have those messy lumpen proletariate having tea parties, threatening to upset the whole apple cart, oh my! It’s enough to give an Ivy League academic a racial panic attack.
The intellectual vanity on display in the piece is simply breathtaking. It was so mis-informed and arrogant that if it weren’t in the NYT, one would think it was an Onion piece. LOL! Just one more reason they’ll soon be wheeling the doddering old gray lady off to hell.
David Brooks is a little man who thinks little thoughts and writes about them in semi pleasing prose.
He did a column about a month ago where he proclaimed his surprise at Obama’s governance and his liberalism. Unwittingly, Brooks displayed his ignorance of the candidate who eventually became President, and his lack of scholarship in researching Obama. He exposed his intellectual laziness on the subject.
Brooks has always been a faker. He and David Frum have proven themselves to be birds of a feather when it comes to damaging conservatives by condemnation. They offer virtually no support for conservatives and consistently upbraid various conservative thoughts or movements. Each of them has proven repeatedly, by their own critiques, that they are small “m” moderates. They are each politically to the left of iconic figures of moderation like Henry Jackson (if you remember who he was). There isn’t a conservative bone in either of their bodies. Each is an absolute token. All you need do is look at the name on the masthead at Brooks’ employer and read any random Brooks column to ferret out his north star. That star is not in the same sky as Reagan’s.
I can’t remember the exact date I lost my respect for Brooks, it was so long ago. He is absolutely authentic as a moderate, but has no chair on the conservative side of the aisle. His opinion on most subjects is rendered valueless by his lack of scholarship.
Brooks is a patrician elitist. He knows nothing about the TEA party phenomenon because it would be beneath him to actually educate himself on the topic. The education, you see, would interfere with his opinion and his agenda.
As I said, a little man who thinks little thoughts.
Hmmm, a little defensive about not being educated? Now this particular tea partier sounds like a minority who been insulted. Time for affirmative action for tea-partiers!
Good grief; the focus of the piece is on how the “knowledge” of the educated elites is being rejected. Glenn Reynolds take is much more reasonable, but then, he’s one of those edjamacated folks, a law perfesser, no less.
Oh, and one other thing: David Brooks was not born into “the educated class,” which is why he is so desperate to associate himself with them (whoever they may be, LOL!). He’s hungry for acceptance into their clique. This is why he’s every liberals favorite conservative.
And what’s also painfully obvious is how very little he appears to know about conservatism. Anyone faintly read in the tradition would cringe to write some of the things he’s written over the years – passages from The Fatal Conceit should have been ringing in his ears. Of course, this assume that he reads!!!! LOL!!!
Sassy at 6,
If we were not in such critical trouble, I might agree with you.
Unfortunately, our friends in Washington have created a welfare state that is systematically destroying the educational opportunities for our young, while indoctrinating the populace on the posibilities of mediocrity, and bankrupting the rest of us who are productive and pay the taxes. Every entitlement program that Washington has created is doing the opposite of it’s intended purpose while paying for it destroys the credit and finacial foundation of our nation.
If the misguided people who are doing this can’t be persuaded of the harmful nature of their constructs so they stop destroying the rest of us, then I have no interest in being together with them any further. I think we reached that point about 10 months ago. I want them voted out, so a more responsible group can begin the process of setting things right.
By the way, lest you think me partisan, I can think of a whole slew of Republicans who are in the destructive class.
#6 – Sassy: “the problem I have this movement is that they ‘hate’ their opposition so much.”
Examples, please. I see lots of hatred, but all the hatred I have seen comes from employees of MSNBC & CNN and is directed at the Tea Party participants.
I’m no fan of Brooks, but its quite possible that Brooks sees exactly what others critical of the movement see. A band of people who largely slept through the last eight years of mismanagement and corrpution. Billions of dollars were thrown away to military contractors, useless wars begun, a rudderless economy left to mire on the rocks. Certainly, if the teabaggers were honestly interested in honest good and small government, they would have been up in arms all throughout this decade. Interestingly, they weren’t. Their movement began a scant month after Obama was in office. Its not surprising this movement lacks credibility, and that indeed, it rankles people who were and continue to be wary of growing government and corruption no matter who is in power.
Sassy, you mean like the bipartisanship on display in the healthcare bill debate?
David Brooks is a good example of education without enlightenment.
David Brooks has been at the New York Times too long, cloistured in his office among the liberals & Socialists among the elitist, Leftis rag; he is a disconnected, elitist journalist to the point that he might as well come from another planet other than Earth. He does not get it.
I’m not convinced he is a moderate either. He sounds like a Democrat & gives Obama too many excuses. I stopped reading his columns awhile back.
If Brooks wants to regain his humanity, he needs to move out of Manhattan Island & move further out in the suburbs of New York State. New York State & New York City are 2 different worlds. He needs to find that he is indeed human. Right now, he comes off as wacky as Michael Jackson without the plastic surgery.
Brooks missed another opportunity to keep his pie hole closed!
Brooks is a moderate liberal who plays the role of ‘conservative’ for the MSM. His audience is comprised of liberals, and he is of no relevance to conservatives.
Brooks is part of a larger cultural shift going on here as people realize that the Republican party is liberal on all issues except a few symbolic fundamentalist Christian hot buttons. The tea party movement is part of a larger attempt to define conservatism away from the republican party. I call myself a libertarian now, as I have almost no common ground with republicans anymore.
Needless to say, almost no liberals have the intellectual capacity to distinguish conservatism from republicanism, as their world view is stricktly a binary universe of good and evil. For this reason, the Tea Party movement, and others with the same motivation, represent a rebellion of conservatives against statists like today’s republican party.
One has to wonder what the longer term effects on the notion of leadership by credentialed ‘elites’ will be as the global warming hysteria will become more apparent over time as a scientific/political fraud. One the republicans, with a few notable exceptions, were just starting to embrace.
We live in an age of superstition, and the elites are essentially priests and shaman.
we are entering a mimi-french revolution in this country. bush-haster-rove destroyed the credibility of the republican establishment and obama-ried-pelosi are proving to be far worse. just like the french revolution protected elites are are milking the vast majority of the people dry.
we need to trash the lot of them.
Well, of course the Tea Partiers are uneducated and thus unfit to participate in democratic governance! I mean, just how many of them have ever contemplated the fact that Obama has read Niebuhr (sigh) or dwelled upon his presidential pants crease (swoon!)?
That Brooks has should tell us all we need to know.
Elitists like Brooks are about to be swept away by the Tsunami of the Great Unwashed from flyover country. We Patriots who put ourselves through college, had lemonade stands, paper routes and part time jobs to pay for a tux for the prom at the local American Legion hall.
We have paid off our college loans, built businesses, tithed to our Churches, coached little league teams and root for our favorite SEC team or, in my case, the Irish!
We have had it with the Brook’s of the world. We care so little about what they say or think which should be obvious from the readership of the new york Times.
We are done talking, calling congressmen etc. On Nov. 2 of 2010 we will make our intentions known. We will sweep away most of the human flotsam called Congress and the Senate. Those that remain will be shaken to the core because they will be shocked. You see, they have not listened to us for a long time, but they are about to.
So Big Dave, have all of the fun you want. Let Chris Matthews, Keith olbermann and David Axelrod keep inviting you to speak and visit. We don’t care because we now understand that we truly have the power, not the media, not MSNBC, not even the white House. We have the power of the vote and we will use it. America is our country. It was made for free men to worship their God, raise a family and to have free will to succeed or fail.
Many of us feel we have failed our country by the type of representatives in Congress and the White House. We are about to fix that mistake. November, 2010…our Independence Day.
Dwight,
Do you have a point to make? Because I can’t seem to make out one in your post. Please try to make yourself clear.
I am in no way surprised by the elitest comments of Mr. Brooks. Perhaps he forgets that the original Tea Partiers were in large part, not members of the “Upper” class. Perhaps a history lesson is in order for Mr. Brooks. “Of the people and by the people” means ALL the people.
Not just those he and the “Dinner” Partiers choose to acknowledge.
I guess I’m in the class of; “To stupid To Live”. I’m a conservative.
I’m not worried about abortion,,, I’m a male. Abortion should be a personal decision… (see how liberal I am, or can be?)
Religion is something that is; “Hands Off”,,, give me a break~! When Muslim Mosques preach the destruction of America, it’s time to take the gloves off and get involved. Screw ‘em. Shoot em up,,, blow em up,,, as necessary. These people don’t like us, well,,, I don’t like them either.
All ya’ll PC folks just back up to the wall. They will get around to shooting you pretty quick.
Bye, ‘yall
This attitude is not surprising. The total failure of the educational system in the realm of history, political and social sciences is profound.
Anyone who believes government is the best answer to anything, that socialism is a productive and socially positive movement is ignorant of history and the social sciences. They have bought into the bankrupt uncritical thought pattern of what passes for the liberal elite today.
The real world “ignorant” serfs have more real world wisdom than our oligarchy can imagine. Let’s hope they get a real eyeful in 2010.
Honestly, we don’t give a crap what he thinks.
Is he saying we’re dumb? Nothing like using the same old play book to make issues devisive. Classism, nothing new…
I’ve noticed that people who over use the word “educated” are the biggests dolts on the planet.
David Brooks should get his own show on MSNBC. He would have a much larger audience than he does with the New York Times.
Althought Dwight couldn’t quite say something, he did lay down some snark about education. As a Tea Partier, I have a doctorate degree (law). While one can get a liberal arts degree without the need to resort to critical thinking (if we are to judge by the intellectual output of the ‘educated elite’, this is not the case with a law degree.
I cannot STAND people like David Brooks!!! I have had to endure people like that all my life. They are all elitist snobs and pompous asses and they will never miss a chance to let you know that they believe, really believe, that they are smarter than you are. Wasn’t the major selling point by the Democrats that Obama was so smart? Yes, Harvard and Columbia graduate and he wrote for the Law Review. Ooooooooo, isn’t that impressive. He never ran a town, a city, a state, or a major (or even a small) corporation. But, no matter, he’s so very smart. Well, how’s all that intelligence working out for you? The economy is a disaster, the war in Afghanistan is going bad, and terrorists are still trying to kill us. I though Obama was going to apologize so much that all Muslims were going to adore us? But people like Obama and David Brooks were Oh So Smart, not like that idiot Bush who couldn’t even give a decent speech. So how’s that Hope and Change working out for you? And to you liberal trolls out there, don’t even think of BLAMING EVERYTHING ON THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION! Your “boy wonder” has been in office almost a year now and things look like their getting worse. And if healthcare gets passed, you can forget about any type of substantial or permanent economic recovery happening anytime soon. All I know is, all of the “smart” people, all of the elitists, all of the Ivy League snots, the lawyers, the career politicians, all of them got us into this mess and they have no solution on how to get us out of it without bankrupting the nation in the process. If this is what the “smart” people like David Brooks can do to this nation, then please, please, elect more everyday citizens with some everyday common sense. We need more Tea Party members elected to Congress and we certainly need one in the White House.
Actually, I interpreted Brooks’ use of the term “educated classes” more narrowly than most. I took it to mean the group that has law degrees from Ivy League universities that they’ve never used in court, whose families are part of the ruling elite, and those who agree with them. You know, the guys whose daddy was a Senator, grandpa was a cabinet secretary for a year under Roosevelt, and great-grandfather was a robber baron who made a pile, so that no one in the family has to work ever again.
This, I think, makes clear the animosity towards Sarah Palin. She isn’t any of these things. George W. Bush, of course, is some of them. There was animosity towards him while he was running for President the first time, but it was nowhere near on the same level. After he entered office, the far left could of course stir up opposition by claiming he shredded the constitution, etc. Most of this is bogus, and the more cynical operatives in the Democratic party know it, but they also know they can use the rhetoric to stir anger, stimulate contributions, and get the vote out.
Palin by contrast was one of the more popular politicians in a bipartisan fashion until she was chosen as the VP candidate. Democrats, in Alaska, liked her pretty well. No one took the complaint that she fired the Public Safety Commissioner over her former brother-in-law seriously. She’s very popular in the state for the way she conducted negotiations with the oil companies over pipelines and transportation of oil. No one up there (or practically no one) complains about the hunting of wolves: if left unhindered, the wolves take too many caribou from the herd, and many Alaskan villages still rely on hunting caribou for food, themselves. The environmentalists who complain about this sort of thing live in high rises in Manhattan.
The thing they latched onto, then, was a subtler attack: she wasn’t a member of the ruling class. There were snide references to the fact that she had a journalism degree, had gotten it at a number of different community colleges, and took longer than usual to graduate. Her country accent and witticisms probably grated pretty badly on ears that typically listen to conversations at country clubs and parties in the Hamptons. She doesn’t read the Wall Street Journal (using the editorial page to line the bottom of your birdcage, of course) or the New York Post or the Washington Post. And as an unspoken undertext of this whole thing: Her daddy wasn’t in politics. She doesn’t have a family trust fund to put in a blind trust when she’s in office. She didn’t go to an Ivy League university, and get a law degree she doesn’t use. Her husband isn’t a powerful real estate investor, CEO, or government bureaucrat–even worse, he has a *blue collar* job!
The trick here is that all of this happened as a *reaction* to her nomination, and the initial popularity bump she gave McCain. I don’t think anyone in the media imagined, a day before her nomination, that she would have this effect. They were fixed, by that time, on their narrative: the young, vibrant, handsome black man defeating the gallant, aging, too-old-to-be-president Senator. Since McCain was going to be defeated, Palin’s popularity, and the subsequent bump, were a shock to them, and to the fanatics on the far left who at the time saw Obama as the Great Black Hope, the guy who was going to finally change everything and remedy all the wrongs they think the American government has perpetrated since the Constitution was signed. Of course those folks immediately went nuts, spreading rumors and innuendo like wildfire. For those who think that Obama came in for as much rumor-mongering consider the following stat: Obama had about 3 dozen Snopes entries (the myth-busting website does a separate entry for each rumor they debunk or confirm) in approximately a year, almost all of them completely debunking the rumor. Palin outpaced him (to about 45 entries) in one month, all of the stories about her being debunked too. Endless rumors about whether her son was actually hers, banning books in libraries, personally flying around in a helicopter shooting wolves, etc.
So now we see what’s going on. It’s become obvious that when a Republican runs for office, if he has a chance of winning the nutjobs come out of the woodwork and say anything, anything at all, to smear the candidate before he wins. Bush, remember, was supposed to *lose* to Gore…it was only when things got as close as they did that the attack dogs emerged. I’ll make a prediction right here: if Bobby Jindal gets nominated in 2012 (or any other year) there will be a liberal birther movement, and it’ll be “different” from the conservative one currently in place, dogging Obama.
Brooks supposedly is a conservative, but my guess is he’s the sort of conservative who can work for the NYT. That means he needs to look down his nose at the unwashed masses in flyover country, or his employers will look elsewhere for a “conservative” columnist.
I meant New York *Times* and Washington Post, not New York Post (Murdoch owns that, no one who can read and chew bubble gum at the same time reads it).
David Brooks, the living avatar of Pauline Kael’s famous dictum, “I don’t know a single person who voted for Nixon.”
Maybe he will propagate contragravitationally from NYT opinion columnist to NYT movie critic, and then be able to review a biographical movie of his own life, _Clueless 2_, with Alicia Silverstone playing the title role of David Brooks. Y’ think?!
One thing I didn’t put in was… considering the amount of ex-military involved in the tea party movement he is not too keen on them either. Or thinks they are all morons.
It’s time for all the “ignorant” people in this country to stop catering to the David Brooks’ of the world. Let him earn an honest wage doing a job that actually matters. Let him fix his own car, change his own oil, do his own laundry, grow his own produce, raise and butcher his own meat, cook his own food. Deny him all these services rendered by “ignorant people” and see exactly how valuable his education actually is.
Now, deny the mechanic, the butcher and the dry cleaner access to the New York Times and you know what? They do just fine without David Brooks. We know this because it is happening with increasing regularity.
The perpetually patronizing pseudo-smile that graces David Brooks’ face is different than obama’s only in that Brooks has had more practice with the timing required to get away with the deception being practiced….as he uses thick layers of public courtesy to mask deeply ingrained scorn for those of us who really don’t give a flip what he thinks. About us or anyone else.
I don’t like you either, Mr. Brooks, and you are not invited over for pumpkin pie. Or any other kind.
Please, tell me how to think and vote. Because all I ever do is listen to the likes of you and Colin Powell. Really. Oh, and maybe Chris Buckley. I just can’t get enough of those Big Government Republicans. I would write more often, but I have to work 40 hours a week, just to pay them the money that they say I owe them so they can give it Chris Dodd for his Irish Castle. But the good news, they let me keep some of my money, every now and then. Just like in Cuba! Did I say MY money? I’m sorry, all money belongs to the Government, we all know that. I can hardly wait until I am forced to buy overpriced insurance or they will throw me in Jail. Jai!! Can you imagine? And maybe if I am real nice, they will let me drive my car every other week, if I pay for carbon credits. I used to like having my guns, but ever since the UN came and took them away, I realize that I never needed them anyway, because the Government is My Friend. The ONLY friend I will EVER NEED! YAY!
Dear Mr. Dodge,
Thank you for your article. I would like to offer a different take on Mr. Brooks’ attitude; his disdain for the Tea Party Protesters is not with whom they are but what they are. The TPP (like the Republican Party) are overwhelmingly white, male, seniors. Now I don’t think that there is anything wrong with those people but that is not a demographic that a national party or movement can be sustained on. For the record, I was in DC during the so called 9/12 movement and 99% of everyone I saw (excluding public-servants and the media) was white and somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of everyone was male and well past mid-life. When considering the influence of any particular group, I think it’s understandable (but not advisable) to be dismissive of those groups who’s power is waning. Mr. Brooks has commented on the demographic problem with conservative movements before and I think his recent comments are just a continuation of that line of reasoning. But I could be wrong, any thoughts?
Not being part of the educated class my retrograde resistance to stupidity persists.
Brooks has a lot of nerve. I would place more value on a plumber or veteran than an ivy league graduate. It is by the labor of others that brooks and his ilk can maintain their position and be kept safe.
I hear these tropes from the bobos all the time.Tea Partiers are uneducated, unhip blah blah, blah. I can’t help but detect a form of attempted social climbing on their part. I guess if they deride the ugly proles vehemently enough they will be rewarded by their betters.
So David Brooks is the authority on what the educated class believes. Maybe he thinks that group is limited to the readers of the New York Times. He might want to get out more.
I continue to be amazed at the enduring power of my photograph on the web.
The picture of the cute girl with the ‘revolt against socialism’ sign was snapped by me at the VERY FIRST Dallas tea party way back in February of last year. A cold day, not as cold as THIS WEEK in Dallas but chilly.. about 300 people turned out on the steps of the American Airlines center where the Mavericks and Stars play.. and that cute girl flashed her sign at me, so I snapped away..
You probably didn’t even choose the pic, Mr. Dodge.. it’s just nice to see it continue to pop up.
on the subject of Brooks, why does anyone care anymore what he says? He is truly the ‘republican, not conservative’ creep that we need to be GETTING RID OF. Let him write and be paid for it. Don’t have to read him.
I don’t know if any of you have ever been on a committee with people that think like Mr. Brooks or not, I have. Let me crack the code for you. Uneducated means you don’t agree with them. You simply have not been educated to the importance of the (fill in the blank) cause. It is their job to educate you. If you refuse to listen, it is not because they are wrong, it is because you are stupid. Even if you have degrees piled on top of degrees if you disagree, you are stupid or worse a traitor to your class, the educated class. You must understand, most of these people are under the mistaken impression that their degree and the things they learned in the ivory tower is what gives them class. It is all they have. Pity them, because when things get really tough and you have to think for yourself and you can’t ask your friends what to think, these are going to be the first people to melt down. Pity them.
Well 9/12 is not necessarily a microcosm of the movement as a whole. This is for several reasons. Most people who attend tea parties have jobs and are not retired. Therefore the attendance was skewed towards those that were retired, self-employed, freelance, etc. There are probably people like me who saw little point in spending the money to go to DC when it would be better spent helping the cause locally.
There is the factor that in many places school had already started, as had colleges. There are lots of videos of tea parties across the country. If he had watched them, on YouTube for instance, he would have seen how diverse the movement is in truth.
Per AID: “…Americans are fed up with those in D.C. because they routinely fail to deal with the problems at hand. They fail to protect the country from attack. They fail to reduce taxation and regulation. They give bailouts to failing companies. They fail to protect the rule of law…”
Yes, Mr. Dodge. As happened under GWB, but these types of “Tea Parties” did not exist and the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of some of TPers was utter hypocrisy. It was the equivalent of Bush did fine, but Obama being in office for 133 days has destroyed America.
Add to the fact that the demographic is much like Mr. Independant @47 described and populated with signs such as those containing the “N” word (even better when the “N” word was misspelled) or such as “Stand Idle While Some Kenyan Tries to Destroy America? WAP! I Don’t Think So!! Homey Don’t Play Dat” and to some of us, the entire intellect of TPers can seemingly be summed up.
BTW, there is a lot worse out there about TP, TPers and the like than what D. Brooks wrote in the NYT. A. Lot. Worse. D. Brooks (no, I don’t like him. no, I don’t regularly read his column. yes, I think he’s a tool.) Based on your comments, though, it doesn’t seem like many of you actually read the article. He’s no fan of the movement, but does not deny it in the least or its potential to impact the future.
Ah, well, back to listening to Irreligiosophy podcasts…
I believe you are wrong Mr. Independent. Brook’s disdain comes from ideological elitism. He never attended a Tea Party and never conversed with numbers of the participants.
I believe you are incorrect on the demographic also. Most of the Tea Party people I know or have seen are middle aged and also large percentages of middle aged women. The people you saw in DC were those who could pick up and go to that event with little concern for their employment. They already have the fruits of their labors and don’t want to see them squandered on an ideological pig in a poke.
Brooks reminds me all too well of numerous disappointments with the self-appointed elites. Decades ago, I did expend the effort to get a terminal degree (AKA “the union card” in academic circles). Over the years, I’ve run across a disturbing number of folks with fancy credentials that I would not have trusted to walk my dog.
Some of the wisest folks I’ve had the privilege of meeting never graduated from high school, had no credentials, but had immense practical knowledge gained by personal grit and determination. I’ve also known some gifted folks who had the credentials, common sense, and determination – not a single sociologist or gender studies graduate among them.
There is absolutely no doubt which kind of person I prefer to have nearby in a crunch.
40. Jindal won’t hesitate to muster his birth certificate if he runs for President. The only argument they could have is claiming that to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must be the offspring of two citizen parents, which they can’t do, because it’s no secret that Obama’s father was not a US citizen. If they were to disqualify Jindal on those grounds, they would by that same act vindicate those who claim the Obama administration is illegal. They won’t do that.
I don’t think that anyone who bears a close resemblance to Bugs Bunny ought to criticize anyone else.
David Brooks is an educated Idiot,and an Ingrate.
If Brooks were actually educated, he would have read Richard Hamilton’s Who Voted for Hitler? (Princeton University Press, 1982). More important, he would know what is demonstrates, that in the critical and still democratic 1932 elections the more educated a community, the greater the vote for the Nazi party. The socio-economic group most resistant to Nazism were rural Catholics.
Looking at professions, the group with the highest percentage of Nazi party membership were those that would today be leaders in ‘fighting global warming.’ Richard Dominick’s The Environmental Movement in German (Indiana Univ., 1992, p. 113f), notes that in 1939, at least 59% of the Naturschutzer leaders had joined the party compared with 18% of adult males, 45% of MDs, and 25% of teachers and lawyers.
–Michael W. Perry, editor of Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II
I sort of visualize Brooksie as being kept around the august premises of the NY Times as a live exhibit in an upper-crust menagerie – a miniature, well-clipped, tamed and polished pet buffalo, neutered and well-housebroken, so that everyone else can look at him and coo “Oh, so that’s what one of them look like . . . really, they don’t appear all that dangerous, do they, Pinchy?”
The trouble is – that a lot of his fellows in the high castle of the NY Times, or NPR and the other so-called elite news outlets have only the vaguest sort of idea about a Tea Party follower, and frankly, of they weren’t so bloody loud and insulting about their assumptions, I’d be inclined to let them continue in their state of delusion.
By all means, Brooksie, and Daniel Shorr of NPR and all the other high-minded dispensers of the elite and upper-crust wisdom – Go on dispensing and apparently believing all that balderdash about moronic, directionless, Nazi-like racists. Pass over any evidence to the contrary. Ignore anyone who points out in a small, still voice that the Tea Party people are small-government, fiscally responsible constitutionalists, of all colors, and religious persuasions, and that many of them are doing a sudden crash course in political activism at the local, nuts’n’bolts level. And that yes, they are angry, my dear Brooksie – but not ignorant, and not unfocused.
Except that they have to be all so insulting and ignorant about it. There are magazines and newspapers, movies and radio stations that I will never read, watch or listen to again, since I have been so annoyed by media outlets that I had once expected better from.
Does anyone actually CARE what this BOOB thinks? Geez. He’ll get his proof when we get bigger and louder.
Walking Horse at 57,
There were several posts that noted similar thoughts to yours. In fact many of the persons I most admire for their accomplishments and contributions to our society are not college graduates.
I had the privledge to work with one of these men in the commercial fishing business out of Nantucket about 30 years ago. He would be amoung my first choices to have next to me in a fox hole. He possessed a 6th sense about nature that saved my life several times, was a phenomenal dog trainer, the best fisherman I ever fished with, sniper accurate with a rifle, and had more common sense than most college grads with graduate degrees I have met. I admire his unique skill set to this day, college would have been irrelevant.
David Brooks is a bad writer. Together with Friedman you’ve got a real life Rosencrantz and Gildenstern. Throw in Maureen Dowd, maybe the Three Stooges.
Regardless, the Tea Party is fringe territory. It’s overwhelmingly here in the comments. Race baiters, conspiracy theorists, objectivists, annoying Libertarians, they’re all here.
brooks is a windbag
an elite, clueless NPR style RINO
Hmmm…Let’s see: I have a total of 5 degrees – two undergraduate, two graduate in the soft and hard sciences, and one business MBA in finance (economics). At the first Chicago tea party, I (white) stood next to Chicago Bull Ben Gordon (black) and many, many self-employed, hard-working Americans – white,black, Asian – who could expostulate on economic theories and recite chapter and verse of the U.S. Constitution plus the collected works of our founding fathers, de Toqueville…you name it! I would put the talents of any one of my tea party compatriots against the poseur wisdom of intellectual wannabee Mr. David Brooks, B.A. history. What a Barney.
Well said, Lefty @65.
What is (not) surprising is the recitation of “elitist” throughout this thread or the pride of someone not being college educated.
Yes, brilliant people do exist that have a higher education as well as those who do not. But there is a difference between intelligence and willful ignorance. It appears that the TPers fall into the latter category of willfully ignorant.
BTW, “lefties” think Brooks is a tool, too. As well as Cheney stenographer-in-Chief, Mike Allen of Politico.
College is not for everyone. But to deny, in this day in age, that it is needed for many, many different job fields – why is it being derided?
Or is it more of a geography thing? Cornell educated – elitist. Ol’ Miss or Vanderbilt – one of *you*? Does U of T @ Austin count for your side or against it? BYU? Pat Roberts Regent University? Bob Jones University? Robert Welch University?
Does elitism extend to those studying theology? What about obtaining a graduate degree in theology? Striving towards social work? Teaching? Agriculture?
What if they go to college on a sports scholarship? Elitist or no? Does it depend on the school?
Sarah Palin has a BA. Is she an elitist too? I’m just *so* confused on the line between one having a college degree (or graduate degree) and being an elitist…
As an earlier commenter noted, Brooks published a book called “Bobos in Paradise” back in 2000 (it was certainly pre-9/11). “Bobos” was his term for the new ruling class. As Brooks noted they were people who had melded the counterculture of the 1960′s with the capitalism of the 1980′s. Although Brooks made gentle fun of their politically correct obsessions, he made it clear that he considered himself one of them. And he thought they would be running America for a very long time.
The book is an interesting period piece. Brooks’ tone was light, suited to the 90′s – the Seinfeld decade about nothing. What has become very clear since then is that the bobos are not up to the task of leading the nation in tough times. In fact, they’re making a hash of it.
I equate the “educated class” as Brooks uses that term to mean people that never got their hands dirty, never worried about cash flow, and never wondered how they were going to pay for their last two years of college or technical education.
“It’s overwhelmingly here in the comments. Race baiters, conspiracy theorists, objectivists, annoying Libertarians, they’re all here.”
Race baiters? Where? You criticize Brooks and then go all Matthews on us. I am guessing you think Brooks wasn’t nasty enough in his daft comments.
But there is a difference between intelligence and willful ignorance.
Well, I should say so. Quite a big difference, actually. But, perhaps you meant there’s a difference between stupidity and willful ignorance?
It appears that the TPers fall into the latter category of willfully ignorant.
Oh, it that how it appears? And of what exactly are we willfully ignorant? Please, do tell.
54. Andrew Ian Dodge:
Well 9/12 is not necessarily a microcosm of the movement as a whole. This is for several reasons. Most people who attend tea parties have jobs and are not retired. Therefore the attendance was skewed towards those that were retired, self-employed, freelance, etc. There are probably people like me who saw little point in spending the money to go to DC when it would be better spent helping the cause locally.
There is the factor that in many places school had already started, as had colleges. There are lots of videos of tea parties across the country. If he had watched them, on YouTube for instance, he would have seen how diverse the movement is in truth.
———————————————————
I was at the DC 9-12 event and if it was skewed like you think then there are a lot more pissed off people that were unrepresented. I met and talked to people from almost every state, age group, race, socioeconomic level and even party affiliation. Even at the local Annapolis TEA party events there was a diverse group of people.
I wonder if Brooks has read “The Bonfire of the Vanities”,
and what part he will play out in the real-life version ?
great essay Andrew.
it has the troll plague stamp of approval.
regards
What does “elitist” mean?
39. Libertyship46:
The economy is a disaster, the war in Afghanistan is going bad, and terrorists are still trying to kill us.
How is that any different than a year ago today?
I do not consent to be governed by felons and tyrants installed by ACORN. Call me whatever name you wish, but I promise to be a stone in the shoe on the long march to Socialism.
avoidswork,
Your posting name says it all. Do us all a favor, you and your “bud”, Lefty, should go troll somewhere else.
I’d call you a d**chebag, but I’m too “educated” to stoop to such epithets.
Yeah.
Most people who argue politics get angry because they really do not have a handle on their subject, though a strong feeling. It is easier to gain confidence than you think. Just look at the roots to understand the whole tree. Answers or, better, questions, flow easily when the roots are clear. There are only two sides to a political argument. One side says community interests are more important than are individual interests, and the reverse is the other side, as cited on claysamerica.com. Look at this site and take the ten simple steps to have a clear and confidant vision from which all issues are easily grasped and discussed. Claysamerica.com
Avoidswork,
Your nick tells all. Good luck eating, in a postmodern Marxist world of diminishing resources and total central government control. In case you haven’t read your history, Hitler and Stalin and Mao and all the great 20th century leftists agreed in principle that people who avoid work are not worth FEEDING.
#65.
Once again: Lefty, examples please.
I just checked his educational background on Wikipedia, if that’s to be believed anymore. He graduated from University of Chicago 1983 with a degree in history. Say no more. I have met a few people who attended the University of Chicago. Each of the people I met who attended that school were snobbish. Maybe that’s a prerequisite when applying for entrance to it. Or maybe the students there are brainwashed into thinking that it’s the best school on Earth. He’s very stubborn on the subject of the Tea Parties. So is Chris Matthews. Intellectual snobs are basically very insecure people who always have to have a group to sneer at in order to make themselves feel superior.
I am relatively new to this blog. The writers and posted comments are impressive. I hope that Mr. Independent’s observation about the demographics of the tea party group is incorrect. I alternate between depression and rage at the present state of affairs and hope that we are not out numbered come November.
Sixtnpenny
I’ve read Dave’s article, and I too was touched how he called himself and his comrades-in-arms – the “educated class”. Given that no one is calling them that – poor Dave felt slighted, so he had to praise himself. Of course, a term which is normally reserved for the likes of Dave is “second-hand dealer of ideas”, which is a far cry from the “educated class”.
Anyway, I would be curious to know how Davie defines “education”. Isn’t it in the eyes of the beholder? Who is he to decide that a degree in feminism is worthy more than a degree in engineering, or that a professional mathematician is less educated than a specialist in African-American studies slash Chicano-Chicana studies?
P.S. Visit my blog:
hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com
68. It’s not the college education that makes one elitist, but rather letting it go to one’s head that does.
Phranc… sorry I was making excuses for Matthews & Brooks. Even if what they claim was the case there is logical explanation. It is clear neither of those two did any research outside a couple of very prejudiced shots on one of the leftie networks.
As a red state redneck and therefore jackbooted teabagger, I never get offended by the David Brooks’ stooges, because if there is anything I learned in med school, it was you can be an incredibly educated individual and still be a complete rube and dangerously inept.
If David Brooks is so wise, why doesn’t he write something wise enough to make a little dough for the failing empire? Brooks is a shill, on par with Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, and other lefties masquerading as moderates. Throw in Kathleen Parker as the female equivalent.
Brooks is to elitist as Paris Hilton and equally as irrelevant.
RE #3/Supreme Allied Comander:
[...] Brooks and Gergen call themselves conservatives but they are not. [...]
I remember once I heard Rush (or was some else?) describing this (approx): “Now the PBS has those balanced shows where they say that they let opposing points of view clash – then they have the house liberal confronting a guest liberal, and shortly they agreee with the most left take on the matter -”
Is Shields vs. Brooks different?
And wasn’t Brooks part of that “secret” press dinner club of Obama adorers from the very beginning?
RE #10/New Class Traitor:
Interesting site, I’ll spend more time later there – thanks -
Re #17/David:
[...] Oh, and one other thing: David Brooks was not born into “the educated class,” which is why he is so desperate to associate himself with them [...]
Are you talking about Barack H. Obama, lord and esquire, BA, MA, BS, BSS, MTV, LCC, KT, UV, PhD, Nobel Peace Price laureate? (all aticipative dregrees and honors).
Complaining about the expensive piano teachers of his daughters? About how hard is to get good butlers these days? Eating aragula, food the bitter white guys know nothing’ about?
Pauvre Obama – his personality is so tragi-comically decipherable when he, exactly like Brooks, is regaling in being confounded with his father’s dream of fulfilment – an influential white guy with an Ivy League law degree and an expensive jacket now no one dares to ask how he got it – wasn’t Joe Biden who came with this when endorsing him?
Lord, where are Moliere, Jonathan Swift, Fielding, Thackeray, Anatole France or Mark Twain?
Wouldn’t they have a field day with Barry and Michelle? And Brooks?
I wonder if the Brooks type came to be because Reps were popular and in power for a decade and he, being the type he is, goes with what is in power. He quickly shifted left when political winds shifted but is unable to make a double pivot so quickly. Those of us who knew very quickly that BO was the worst US president ever and the Pelosi and Reid government are almost worse shake our heads at the idiots who feigned right , pivoted left and now don’t really know who they are supposed to pretend to be. He is a joke.
Hey, But But #77, the MAJOR difference is that “boy wonder,” our fearless leader, sold people on the idea that he was oh so smart and that he would solve all these problems. Poof, they would magically all go away. He had nothing to base these false claims on, certainly no track record in either public service or government, no record of achievement, yet people like David Brooks (and you) just knew that this guys could “bring us together and cure all of our ills.” Bunk. I didn’t believe it then and my worst fears are coming true. There IS something to be said for experience and this guy never had it. He was packaged and promoted by the media, sold to the American public like you would sell tires or sneakers, on why we needed this product. And, as you know, Madison Avenue advertisers would never, ever, lie to you, right? Americans should look at all politicians as job applicants and look at their records. They should base their votes on what these people have done, NOT what they promise what they will do. This is what you get when you buy gloss over substance. Yes, 2010 should be very, very, special and I hope people like David Brooks are hounded forever for supporting con men like Obama.
Brooks is a good example of the elite political class tht runs our illegitimate one-party system. He’s arrogant, condescending, effeminate. The fact that he is the NYT token “conservative” says it all. One of the key concepts of propaganda is to include people like Brooks to add the illusion of balance or diversity of opinion. Brooks, Noonan, K. Parker, Frum, all belong on the same exclusive iceberg.
David Brooks is educated to the point of imbecility. What a worthless lump of tissue.
No white knight in the movement, is there?
Maybe there shouldn’t be — white knights are for populism.
Maybe there’s not system capable of integrating them.
Maybe the Republic doesn’t exist, and hasn’t for quite some time.
Maybe he is referring to the “educated class” who have dumbed down our public education system to be increasingly an agency for indoctrinating the less priviliged classes? Having been involved in a fairly typical large midwestern suburban high school, I could report to him that, while in many ways actual learning has been successfully suppressed in favor of social conditioning, we still turn out a few kids whose parents have managed to keep intellectually active.
The gap between leftist-elitist la la land and current American reality continues to widen and deepen.
He did use a very strange choice of words. I wonder if he’ll explain what “educated class” is supposed to mean.
The actions of the ‘Educated classes’ are not hard to understand. As Deep Throat instructed, “Just follow the money.” University education today is a major investment. It’s easy to blow through 100-150K on an Ivy League degree. We are talking big bucks. From this perspective, it’s easy to see why the Ivy-educated elites defend the value of their education by denigrating those who haven’t paid the dues. Imagine if anyone from the great unwashed masses could just, on the basis of life experience and strength of character, step up and take over the reins of leadership. All of a sudden, folks would be questioning the value of all those degrees and their real worth would plummet like Florida real estate.
Bottm line: Brooks and his friends are just protecting their investment.
DD
Sassy – Tea Party people don’t “hate” their opposition, the hate their ideas and policies. “Discussion” with those bent on destroying the foundations of our nation and “fundamentally transforming” it are not possible. The current crop of progressives in power have been salivating over this opportunity for well over 80 years. They must be opposed…strenuously!
93. Libertyship46:
So it’s NOT any different than a year ago.
Everyone head over to National Review, watch the latest series with Dr. Thomas Sowell titled after his latest book
Intellectuals and Society.
The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.
Poor David Brooks. His basic problem is that he neither is acceptable to the elite class. He only has a BA in History. By todays standards that really isn’t much. In all reality for someone who should have figured out what is transpring with the Tea Baggers he is seriously lacking in perceptive about the Tea Baggers. Its not who the tea baggers are its what they represent. People who are fed up with politics as usual, backroom deals and all the rest. I have 5 college degrees, own numerous guns, drive a 4 wheel pick up and an a voting member of an American Indian tribe and yet I support what the tea baggers represent 100%.
It’s a philosophical difference stupid.
An elitist is one who dismisses others because they don’t meet their arbitrary standard. He dismisses those people’s ideas without ever listening. He dismiss people who actually meet his arbitrary standards but disagree with him as uneducated by fact of their disagreement. The elitist has a closed mind. He believes he and his friends should rule and those who don’t meet their standards should serve their lords and masters faithfully and silently.
Education is a tool and not a yard stick however an elitists needs some measurement so that he may easily separate himself from those who he disagrees with without listening to them.
Rick you forgot Krugman. The economist who never met a big government, tax and spend idea he didn’t like.
Again just take a look at the genius Sowell on National Reviews Uncommon Knowledge. You an watch it over and over again. It’s music to the ears.
Blovis (post 20): I think that many conservatives acknowledge that we were asleep at the wheel when Bush was president. We’re sorry. (For what it’s worth, I protested against the war in Iraq and voted for Gore.) That was then; this is now. Bush is no longer president, and members of the Tea Party are wary of both political parties. We want someone who represents our values.
55. avoidswork:
Yes, Mr. Dodge. As happened under GWB, but these types of “Tea Parties” did not exist and the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of some of TPers was utter hypocrisy. It was the equivalent of Bush did fine, but Obama being in office for 133 days has destroyed America.
What got the Tea Parties going was the $800 billion Stimulus Package that nobody had read but which had to be passed ASAP. If your statement is correct, then there should have been overhwelming Republican support for the bailout package in the fall , which like the Stimulus Package was also a megabillion special spending bill.
We find out that 108 of 199 House Republicans and 63 out of 235 House Democrats voted against the bailout package. Therefore 27% of House Democrats voted against the final version of the bailout package, while 54% of House Republicans voted against it—in spite of Bush and McCain pushing the bill.
The Republican vote on the bailout package indicates that there was already considerable sentiment against reckless increases in spending, contrary to your assertion.
Take a look at the projected deficit figures.
Mr. Dodge,
Thank you for your response. I agree that the ‘9/12’ project may not necessarily be a microcosm of the movement as a whole but I think it is. This wasn’t some small town rally with only a few hundred people attending. I think there were at least 50K people attending and I wouldn’t be surprised if the real number was closer to 100K. Most of those people probably don’t live in the DC area. Also I wasn’t exaggerating when I said 99% of all the protesters were white and 2/3 (or more) of those were male seniors. Again I don’t think there is anything wrong with being such but that is a serious demographic problem for conservative movements. But for the sake of argument, do you really believe that 2/3 to 3/4 of conservative movements (including the GOP) are not made up of white, male, seniors? If you don’t, why doesn’t polling indicate that? If you do, isn’t that a serious problem for conservative movements?
Thank You
6. Sassy:
the problem I have this movement is that they ‘hate’ their opposition so much
Is that why the other side of the aisle calls them “teabaggers,” a label with sexual innnuendo, to show how much they do not hate and the Tea Party people hate?
I am reminded of how the Democrats characterized the Town Hall meetings this summer.The Weekly Standard summarizes:
How does that compare to the actual record? The Weekly Standard article lists the incidents at the Town Hall meetings this summer, and then summarizes them:
The violence and hatred is coming from the left side of the aisle, as shown by the record for the Town Hall meetings.
Sassy was the nickname of one fine jazz singer,the dear and departed Sarah Vaughan. While many singers have lost their voices by their 60s- Sinatra definitely had- Sarah’s voice was still a fine instrument at that age.
People like Brooks are so indoctrinated by the IV league socialists He can’t understand why people revolting. As an naturalized citizen I can explain it but he will not understand
he may be able to write bunch of gibberish but he like all other lefties, he’s a narrow minded buffoon.
Let me explain to you Mr. Brooks, people all over the world want to came to America because they want to get away from a government that controls their life.
In Europe people protest in front of prime minister office for more government in America people protest in from the state house for less government. Can you see the difference I doubt it.
If you think more government is good go live in Europe. I would like to see you how long you will last. I can guarantee you will want to get away ASAP.
People like Brooks are either talking to other smug and pompous liberals, or they can just talk to the hand. His audience in America is equivalent to the audience of the aristocracy in England. The little people will speak to him, his liberal elite friends and the crooks in Washington DC come November. Until then…talk to the hand David.
Michael,
Thank you for your response. I respectful disagree. If you listen to what DB says away from the NY Times you’d notice a recurring theme when he comments on the TPP, they represent a demographic that does not represent the USA. Now I believe that you and others are correct that his ‘research’ about the TPP has largely been a joke but I think his assertions about their potential power are not.
On the issue about demographics, I have not seen or read anything to suggest that I’m wrong. I never stated that there are no women or young people involved with that movement but that they only make up 1/4 to 1/3 of the movement. Now, in all fairness I have only attended TP events in Texas and DC but even so, the demographic that I’ve stated have been consistent. That’s a very significant pattern. Consider this, if the only attendees were business owners or freelancers why were 99% of them white? I find it hard to believe that there are no black or latino entrepreneurs in the country. There were tens of thousands of protesters at the ‘9/12’ event; if other demographics support the TP movement, why weren’t they there?
OK so I’m a linguistics and language professor author of several text books and educational software as well as a mere de famille and I know exactly where Sarah Palin and tea party goers are coming from. Furthermore I admire and support them while I have nothing but the utmost contempt for sycophantic ugly David Brooks and the two affirmative action degree holders in the White House whose base ignorance is displayed whenever they open their mouths or are loosed on civilized folk like UK royalty. BTW I’m a Quebecker where females retain their pre-marriage names forever so professionally I go under a different surname.
I am not an official member of our city’s tea party but I have attended the rally here the 9/12 one in DC and two townhall meetings. I am a former diehard Dem who woke up when I saw clearly the takeover of the Party by the Chicago gang and the absolute disregard for the rule of law demonstrated by the RBC of the Party on May 31st, 2008. That was it, I switched over to the other side, attended McCain/Palin rallies and never looked back. The 2008 election lifted up the rock of liberalism and underneath was slime, socialism, corruption, empty rhetoric and worst of all, riding into power on the backs of minoritites and poor people with no intention of bettering their lives. I say ‘thank you’ to scum like Brooks who has helped us to see the hypocrisy and through his disdainful elitism shows us that we are indeed on the right side. Keep insulting us, it only makes us more determined and grows our numbers.
“Personally, I’m not a fan of this movement.”
Because it is an insult to teabaggers?
The Tea Parties are an expected reaction to the excesses of the political class. It is a great mystery to me that the liberally educated elite do not see this. Although unchecked politicians threatens us all in so many ways, these “elites” appear to idolize them in some crazy version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
If there is a hell on earth it is being forced to live under the rule of others who:
a) are ignorant of the complexities in the issues they address.
b) are arrogant and un-checked in their wielding of power
c) are driven by delusions of their own importance and the false grandeur of their causes, and
d) are personally unaffected by the consequences of their actions
Yes we need to band together to take care of some business like defense and law enforcement. But almost everything else is unnecessary. Limited Government can only be achieved by limited funding and by electing people who understand the concept of liberty in society. The tea parties are a great start. It’s really not any more complicated than that.
I resent this definition of “the educated class” as those who hold particular (liberal or leftist) political positions.
I am assuming Brooks based this garbage on some polls I’ve seen where more people with college educations hold those positions as those without. Though he didn’t deign to mention any studies supporting his thesis, I have seen a few polls that show that more of those with college degrees have this or that view, such as pro-abortion.
However, those with college degrees are not all leftists, nor do they all agree on all these positions, as he so facilly (and incorrectly) states. There is no such monolithic thing as “the educated class,” who all agree on things, and who know better than others on all topics by dint of their education. What total nonsense!
And even if there were such a monolithic “educated class,” one would have to wonder how truly liberally educated any group of people could be who all believe in lockstep on such a divergence of topics. I would suggest that rather than having been taught how to think (the true goal of education), they have merely been taught what to think. And – bought it uncritically, hook, line, and sinker,
Obviously, all educated people don’t agree on political topics. Worse, however, is the implication that if people are educated, they are therefore right on all matters. That simply doesn’t follow. In other words, even if all educated people did agree on all these topics, why would it follow that they are therefore also correct?
Is there something about sitting in sociology or gender studies classes that automatically confers knowledge, experience, judgment, intelligence, and wisdom that can’t be acquired otherwise? That the absence of the degree means the absence of knowledge, experience, judgment, intelligence, or wisdom?
Even if everyone with a college degree did agree on all these topics, it might be just as likely that they are too insulated to see the total picture. Someone with a scientific background would posit that very possibility to explain the group-think.
College degrees don’t even mean what they once did, just as high school degrees no longer do. Moreover, are we to simply dismiss the opinions and beliefs of older people, who went to college in far fewer numbers than people now do?
Why not, Brooks would say.
And finally, I’ve never heard of anything as un-American as this notion that we have “educated classes” at all. Since when in the United States did we have such clearly delineated classes?
And if so, where does the line end?
If you went to college, does that mean you know better than someone who didn’t? If you went to graduate school, does that make you a better judge of things than those who didn’t?
In which case, my graduate degree would place me ahead of many liberals who hold different positions from my own. Would I not therefore be automatically more correct (on anything) than whoever doesn’t have the degrees I do?
Why not, Brooks would say. He probably ranks his entire self-esteem on just such a false scale, wherein he would gladly and humbly cede his own self-esteem and his own rights as a citizen to anyone who simply had more degrees than he, or who went to what he considers a more prestigious university.
And while we’re at it, why not just limit voting to those who have attained a certain degree? Because apparently going to college means you know best, and should be able to tell everyone else what to do.
I can’t begin to tell you how beside myself – beyond the point of articulateness – I am over this sort of thinking, not to mention how dangerous it is.
We didn’t begin this country with the idea that we would have kings and queens and other royal titles; or with the notion that our brand of royalty would depend on degrees obtained, and, further, precisely which institutions they were obtained from – with an ivy league college meaning your views are automatically more educated (and thus more correct), while a large state university means you are less valid.
What’s next? How about people in the northeast and San Francisco and the west coast are the “cultured classes,” as opposed to anyone from flyover country; therefore whatever they (somewhat) agree upon should be what we do?
Why not, Brooks would say. I imagine it won’t be long before we start hearing about “the cultured class,” or “the sophsicated class,” or whatever class they can count themselves among, which they then will use as the reason for why they are right, and why they should run things.
Topping it off is the fact that these people seem to buy their own hype. Brooks apparently does believe he is superior to anyone with less formal education than his, and simply can’t imagine why he and those like him shouldn’t run things.
The most basic aspect of the whole thing is really nothing more than just another form of “cool” – like the kind you hear in high school: “All the cool kids think such and such; surely you wouldn’t dare to differ? Oh, and by the way, we’re the cool kids.”
More specifically, “This is what all the smart people think, don’tcha know. You don’t want to look stupid, do you?”
They want to shame people into letting them run things.
I’ve about had it for this arrogant, naked contempt and total lack of respect people like Brooks hold for others. Such overweening pride will surely, surely herald a coming fall.
I hope to hasten that fall, and will do whatever I can to ensure it.
P.S. I am now going back to read the comments. You would think I’d already read #57, because we both used sociology and gender studies as our examples!
Also, for the fellow thinking that this is all just some rebellion against the election of Obama, wrong. Many of us had hopes about that, too. However, we’ve learned since that we shouldn’t have believed a thing he promised.
No, what it was was the implosion of the economy in the fall of 2008.
It was at that point that people who aren’t normally that political became concerned, and began to pay close attention. When it became obvious that things not only weren’t going to improve after Obama, but were barreling along at ever more rapid speed towards certain destruction, people took to the streets.
Mr. Independent, I have been to two tea party rallies (both of considerable size).
They were indeed 99% white, but definitely not mostly male. Nor were they mostly seniors – I would say they were mostly in their 40′s to 50′s, with a fair representation of people in their sixties, and a fair representation of people in their thirties.
If I had to give my impression of their average age, it would be around 40-45, many still with children.
But – so what? Why lose sleep over the demographics? Would one just take a scan around the group, as I did, and decide that it isn’t diverse enough, so let’s just forget about all those things we stand for and go home?
No. Instead, have patience. I believe we will get more and more of those demographics, because I think the middle class is the strength of the country, and, by definition, the middle of the country – i.e., the median.
Middle class concerns are what motivates the tea parties, and I believe more and more middle class will come to the same point of view as ours, as they find that the statists are trying to blot out our very existence.
As more middle class people feel the concrete effects of this – in their pocketbooks; in their lack of choices and freedoms; in the penalties and taxes of all sorts that will be levied on the middle class; in the forced and arbitrary rise of the costs of necessary goods; and in the increasing and startling illegality of government actions – they will join in the movement.
In short, as they come to feel and experience the redistribution (that, unlike the rich, they actually can’t afford without slipping back into lower economic classes, with no hope of getting ahead or even back to where they once were), they will join us.
I guess you could say, when you have studied the issues from all sides and feel you are right, you stand up for what you believe you know to be right, and simply wait for others to join you. You don’t decide it’s all hopeless simply because enough people of different colors aren’t with you yet.
David Brooks believes he is ‘more equal’ than the rest of us, and we should defer to his awesome college-educated braininess. There’s the usual Northeast cultural bias there, too, that does not acknowledge life west of the Hudson River.
Most if not all members of Congress are college educated. Look at the mess they’ve made. But I don’t blame their college degrees- I blame Congress’ institutional dishonesty, avarice, and lust for power.
You want to make things better in this country? Start with Congress, where everything that is wrong comes from.
And David Brooks can go eff himself, the candy-ass Yankee MF.
RE #199/Alana:
[...] Mr. Independent, I have been to two tea party rallies (both of considerable size). They were indeed 99% white, but definitely not mostly male. Nor were they mostly seniors – I would say they were mostly in their 40’s to 50’s, with a fair representation of people in their sixties, and a fair representation of people in their thirties. [...]
Alana the Tea Party issue has been located by Obamatons as being dangerous for the policies of the One, therefe they attac and distort it in in any possible manner –
Conversely, you can assess a PJM article’s validity by the promptly ensuing assaults in the comments following it –
Independent’s single objective (like his other trolls’ fellows here) is to confuse or discourage anyone who dares to signal flows in Obama’s luminous leadership – and that’s all -
Their arguments also come uniformly from red herrings table – like why only older whites and no blacks and latinos in the Tea Parties?
First, as age – the tea parties age chart is a perfect representation of the ways the world works: generally, one succeeds in busines after thirties (unless you are a rapper or a gangbanger, who appear amongst Independent’s career preferrences) -
Then race – why should the Tea Parties be a silly “rainbow coalition” after all? Is it mandatory? Would that add more credibility to the movement? Not at all -
Then, regarding “are there less Black and Latinos” entrepreneurs than white in this country?” – Yes, there are SIGNIFICANTLY LESS, AND PERCENTAGE-WISE SO less Latino and Black enterepreneurs in this country, and this for various reasons –
Trolls’ actions can be easily located by the content of inanity they carry – Independent is well positioned on the Obamatons Scale Of Stupidity -
So, remember – the Tea Parties are just fine, and the Jericho’s walls didn’t fall at the first blare of horns –
Regards -
Dear Alana,
Thank you for your response. In answer to your question about demographics, my point was concerning Mr. Dodge’s article about Mr. Brooks “reporting” about the Tea Party Protestors. My reading of the article was that Mr. Dodge believes DB is dismissive of the TPP because of an elitist mentality. I disagree. As I stated in a previous post, I think DB attitude about the TPP is from what he perceives as their fatal flaw, their demographics. The demographic issue is important because political power is based on who will vote. Seniors have always been the most powerful voting block in this country and will continue to be so but white, male, seniors will not. That’s the point. Away from the NYT, DB has commented on this many times, which is why I think his dismissive is based on that and not an elitist mentality. I agree not all TPP are white, male, seniors but my experience (and that of almost all polling I’ve read concerning conservative voting) has shown that most are. Again there is nothing wrong with being such but that is not a demographic that can sustain a national movement for very long. Our country is changing. American voters are becoming more representative of America. As more and more non-seniors, non-whites, and women vote the power behind conservative movements is eroding. If those movements cannot convince those new voters to support them, those movements are finished. Hence, demographics are very important.
misanthropicus,
I’m sorry but you don’t seem to understand the concept of my posts. The topic of discussion has been Mr. Dodge’s article. Perhaps you should read that article. If you do, you should notice that my comments have been about the article and not the red herrings that you were discussing in your last post.
“Bias” and “Arrogance” by Bernard Goldberg still describe those who say it isn’t the case.
Here is another example: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/01/08/2010-01-08_beauty__the_bust_for_abc_fianceacutee.html
Does anyone seriously conclude that if she was engaged to a Republican an ABC spokesman would call it, “Water under the bridge”?
One other thing, Andrew. When it comes to the Nazi party, they were breaking the speech laws of the Weimar Republic countless times, as Mark Steyn relates here: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/26/major-nidal-hasan-had-an-enabler/
The Unbearable Elitism of David Brooks
“The Unbearable Lightness of David Brooks’ Brain”
…they generally don’t know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me.
It’s “I” David, I.
Don’t any of these pretentious élitists speak English ?
“I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his (Obama’s) couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,”
David Brooks, the Quintessential American Sycophant
I am, and I know many, many others, who are better educated than David Brooks. He claims that the “educated” class is pro-abortion, pro cap & trade and anti-second amendment. But I know many folks better educated than he who hold just the opposite views. I also know many who can dance intellectual circles around David Brooks who would not spend an instant, let alone an entire evening, tolerating a Republican politician’s hand on his thigh.
I don’t understand this movement. The two most important issues in this country – security and the economy – were horribly managed by the Bush administration. That administration ignored intelligence warnings leading up to 9/11, created an unforgivable distraction by going to war with Iraq who had nothing to do with Al-Qaida, and created a huge financial burden by not properly calling for shared sacrifice (taxes) to fund the war. I don’t see much philosophical difference between this movement and the republican party from 2000 – 2008, so how can the Tea Party claim to be have a better perspective on security and fiscal responsibility when all evidence suggest otherwise?
“Our country is changing. American voters are becoming more representative of America. As more and more non-seniors, non-whites, and women vote the power behind conservative movements is eroding. If those movements cannot convince those new voters to support them, those movements are finished. Hence, demographics are very important.”
Mr. Independent, we will just have to agree to disagree, since we seem to be talking at cross purposes.
The point I’m trying to make is that age, race, and gender have little to do with the things the tea partiers want to see: Less government and less spending; more freedom and greater adherence to the proven principles on which the country was founded.
While there may be some correlation between some of these demographics – and whether one is on the receiving end of government largess, or on the end that is forced to subsidize more and more – ultimately, all will suffer from these policies.
Ultimately, more and more will comprehend the obvious: That we are deeply in debt, with no way out, while the government continues to spend like kids in a candy shop with someone else’s money; and that they are doing so precisely in order to forcefully reshape our society, whether we like what they have in mind or not.
It doesn’t matter what your age or skin color is in terms of being able to see that; and the more astute (regardless of color, age, or gender) realize that this cash cow that seems to endlessly give is running out of milk.
Agreed, that will take some time, with a lot of people, as the milk dries up and the consequences become ever more painfully obvious. But I have faith that people can do simple math, and will come more and more to disagree with the destruction of the economy (and the country, and their own freedoms), regardless of any short-term perceived or promised personal advantage.
In the long run, one’s socioeconomic class will have little bearing on the ability to grasp this calamity in the making; let alone one’s gender, age, or race.
Age, gender, and race are always trumped by higher principles, as well as by basic realities. Age, gender, and race don’t drive reality.
In other words, there isn’t anything about being female that means you can’t ever grasp basic economics, or basic principles, even when they slap you in the paycheck. (Assuming it were true that the tea partiers are mostly male, which they very definitely are not.)
Nor is there anything about being a particular race or age that makes a person blind to these realities. Whether or not they join the demonstrations.
– That’s a lot of talking for agreeing to disagree, I know! I’m sure there must be a shorter way of saying what I’m trying to.
In essence, you keep saying, “But look at all the women and minorities and young people!” While I’m trying to say those factors are irrelevant, and will become more and more so as time goes on.
I’m afraid we will just continue to talk at cross purposes, so you may have the last word, if you are still reading this.
Alana,
Yes I agree that we are in fact writing about cross purposes, so let’s try to clear it up.
The point of AD’s article (as it appears to me), is that he feels that DB’s attitude about the TPP is based on ‘intellectual elitism’. As I’ve stated before, I think that DB’s attitude is based not on elitism but on his perception of the potential power behind the TPP. DB has stated such many times.
On my comments about the TPP, I’m not making any judgments about them. I’m not stating that any particular movement can only be justified by a diverse following. And I do believe that the goals of the TPP can be supported by any Americans. What I have illustrated, is the only a certain group of Americans are supporting the TPP. 99% of them are white and 2/3 to 3/4 of them male, seniors. The demographics issue is important not to determine if the TPP are legitimate but to point out that their long term political support is not.
Finally, I must say it has been a pleasure debating with you on this topic. It’s very seldom that I find commenters on political websites that are able to converse in as civil and honest manner as you do. Hopefully we can continue such discussions on other topics.
Thank You
David Brooks continues to bash tea partiers and Jonah has responded.
When confronted with a problem, one must first identify the problem. FDR and his minions started the self imposed rot within our body politic when they instituted creeping socialist government policies with their alphabet soup agency titles. All self serving socialist think and plan in a minimum time frame of “five year plans.” Our elected representative republic has been slowly but surely subverted by our “enemies from within”, the self appointed “elitists” within the DC Beltway. Members of this “elitists” are the career politicians of democrats and republican parties, the entire body of civil servants who staff our government agencies, and the destructive thinkers of both parties who man these alleged “think tanks” between each changing administration and of course the graveyard for all former career politicians, the lobby firms who work both sides of the street that rob tax dollars for their clients and for themselves. These are our nations “enemies from within.” Needed reforms: 1) All federal judges SHALL retired at age 72. Law degree is no protection against father time. 2) Any candidate who accepts financial contributions from outside the political geographical boundary for which he is a candidate SHALL be automatically disqualified. 3) All financial contributions received by a candidate SHALL immediately be made public with name, address, and amount of the contributor. 4) Senator SHALL be elected for two six year terms. Representatives SHALL be elected for six two year term. 5) President SHALL have veto power over outrageous “pork barrel spending.” 6) All congressional bills SHALL be limited to item identified as the reason for the proposed legislation; no riders outside stated purpose for the legislation SHALL be attached. 7) All oversight congressional committees SHALL be held responsible to the tax payers for any dereliction of duty in timely execution of their oversight duties. TV preening after the fact SHALL be cause for removal from the committee. lee
Excellent goods from you, man. I’ve remember your stuff previous to and you are simply too excellent. I really like what you’ve bought here, certainly like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still take care of to stay it sensible. I can’t wait to read far more from you. This is really a terrific website.