David Brooks statement (video) is the most important event in current political commentary

[Essene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvxQwNqZSOQ

Seriously.

Americans oughta take notice of this call to return to real ideas, real public problem solving, and away from populist anti-intellectualism. I wish we could flush all the Rush and Hannity fools for more George Will and David Brooks types. These types of conservatives force democrats to have stronger ideas and arguments, rather than to just have fiercer rhetoric. They make america stronger, rather than celebrate insincere anti-intellectualism.

Watch the full video.

For those who don't know, David Brooks is a former Weekly Standard writer, contributes to NYTimes, Newsweek, etc and is perhaps best recognized as one of the main pundits on PBS' The News Hour.

"<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."

****

This isn't merely about the usual attacks from the left about "neocons" or whatever (and that term is usually applied too broadly and incorrectly). This isn't even an attack on the cynical politics represented by Rove. This is a more fundamental commentary that implicates our wider culture, both our political and social culture. It also implicates the identity politics of our 2 parties. Who are we and what do we care about? The GOP are in a core philosophical meltdown. The social conservatives and culture warriors have taken control of the party, but what do they really offer beyond nationalist "us/them" ploys?

He's thrown the gauntlet down at a crucial moment and seems ready to even shed the "republican" label.

I suspect he's not alone on that last part...

(the GOP has to decide if "conservative" only means a cultural warrior who waves the pastoral christian evangelical flag)

There is no question that many conservatives wish the party was about big ideas, was about good fiscal ideas and was seeking political power based on those ideas. There's also no question that Brooks represents a vocal and bitter minority of conservative intellectuals who are fed up with the last 8 years in particular.

Democrats should NOT look at this as a "hahaha" moment to celebrate Brooks for poking at the GOP's ticket, but rather as a challenge not to go down the same route in the coming years... obsessed with populist rhetoric and cultural ploys over the power of ideas.

[Sherman A1]

1. I think you hit the nail on the head

This is not a HaHa moment. Democrats must be open to listen to all ideas and not be dismissive of anything out of the gate. Not every thing can or will work or will be agreeable with our direction or beliefs, but often even a bad idea can be a building block to a good one or at least a compromise. We need to understand that there are people who hold firmly to their beliefs on the other side of such social issues as abortion (as an example) and be respectful of them while disagreeing. We need everyone to pull together in these times and the politics of division need to end.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Last sentence gets an Amen!

[StClone]

3. Reagan is the reason for Palin Brooks you moran!

"Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas... Did NOT! Espousing Reagan in any way shape or from gives me reason to reject this story. Despite the warning, "Democrats should NOT look at this as a "hahaha" moment to celebrate Brooks for poking at the GOP's ticket. Smash them Crush them as the Republicans of the 20's is the same crooked bunch we have today.

[greenman3610]

4. Brooks is a pseudo intellectual turd

He's what passes for intellectual in the media, like
George Will.
He's been a complete shill for Bush for 8 years, and now
he's willing to stick a shiv in his back.
Great. Thanks. 100s of thousands dead.
Economy in shambles. America's reputation in
ruins.
Now you get it.
Great.

[Essene]

9. however you feel about him (lol), at least he respects ideas and those who do

[StClone]

11. Sure like calls for Bipartisanship when Dems are in power

And when the Repiggies are in power it's our way or the highway.

You know why Brooks needs two cell phones?

So he can talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Lip service here, support the Cons in toto there.

[Essene]

7. i semi-agree, but Reagan was not really on the same level as Bush Jr and the culture warriors

Reagan's rhetoric may have been folksy and he tapped into populist sentiments, but he DID focus on big ideas.

YOu may not agree with those ideas or even want to call them "big," but he didn't openly reject the conservative intellectualism.

Meanwhile... we have 8 years of Bush Jr... and Mccain out there laughing off "georgetown republicans," while Palin winks and hate mongers.

[StClone]

12. I have trouble with anything Reagan.

So forgive me for disagreeing. Ronnie was the first step on a journey to W and then to Palin. If he had Big ideas they were either bad ones, were perverted by less senile underlings, or died with him.

[Essene]

21. This isnt really about likeing the conservatives. It's about populism and anti-intellectual culture

Reagan's populist ploys sometimes were folksy or whatever, but he tried to elevate intellectualism (regardless of whether we agree with the ideas).

I am not saying he was 100% on that, but compare/contrast to the last 15 years of Republican rhetoric and Fox.

[kstewart33]

5. Great post. Thanks! nt

[StClone]

13. Why?

[Bread and Circus]

6. K and R. I like your analysis.

[StClone]

14. Huh?

[Orsino]

8. Meh. Brooks is a corrupt fool.

The OP contains good advice for Democratic leaders in the coming years of majority--we know that lobbyists are already singing sweetly to them--but Brooks' flailing about for fresh excuses to support neocons is not significant.

[Essene]

10. brooks is a neocon? scalpels please =D

[rosesaylavee]

15. In 4 Years, there will be another political party replacing

the Republicans. Lots of Republicans are abandoning ship and I don't see them siding permanently with Democrats.

[Essene]

19. I'm seriously starting to this this might REALLY happen. It's amazing, isn't it?

And... i think we want to remember just how close we were to seeing a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket.

That little aside Brooks made was not insignificant.

[rosesaylavee]

26. We still may see them pair up...

but under the Independent or Bull Moose Party or Less than Whacky Party ticket.

[Jennicut]

16. I grew up watching Ronnie and he was WAY smarter then Shrub or Palin

He was doddering and old at the end, he was way to conservative for me, he was an idiot at times. But he never approached the stupidity of Shrub or Palin. The man had big ideas regarding how to deal with Gorbachev and the Soviet Union. He really believed in smaller government. Looking back, I did not agree with his ideas (I was only a child when he was in office) but the man really had a conviction about what he believed in. I don't think Palin knows what she believes and Shrub is a puppet heavily influenced by his Daddy's friends and Cheney. What is responsible for these two is a Rethug party desperate to win at all costs rather then winning on their ideas.

[gratefultobelib]

17. I read the transcript of this speech by Brooks, and the part I think is

most enlightening is when he discusses Obama's intellect and social perceptiveness. Brooks is obviously very impressed. Also mentions Obama's skill at gathering smart, capable people around him.

[StClone]

18. Thanks, that's what I was after

How even Brooks got some Obama Love goin. And those Obama people! Did you see Gibbs schooling Hannity. It is people like that that are changing the game and I think Brooks is sensing that the lies of the past are not going to work. Not to say that lies in the future won't be retooled for further fear and follow-up mischief.

[Essene]

20. The Economist did a survey of economists... and even the republicans said obama...

...knew economics better than mccain and would have better people around him.

[Supersedeas]

28. when will integrity rise with real conservatives?

[calmblueocean]

22. Might've been nice if you F'ING SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS BEFORE NOW, Brooks.

Christ, you've had 8 years now to call out this dangerous demagoguery, hero worship, and scapegoating in your party, and it takes you until NOW? Until an incompetent, lying bimbo is nearly a heartbeat away from running this country?

Brooks has always had a lot of nerve, but this takes the cake.

And you know he'll try to make up for this by increasing his criticism of Obama.

I loathe Brooks.

[PinkyisBlue]

24. Where was Brooks eight years ago, when we had moronic Bush trying to debate the intellectual Gore?

Or four years ago, when we had moronic Bush trying to debate the intellectual Kerry? I didn't hear him talking about the dumbing down of the Republican party then, or the importance of intellectualism. He can talk about it now because it's safe and other people are saying the same thing.

Yes, he's a two-sided hypocrite who uses three syllable words in his rhetoric to appear to be an intellectual. But basically he's a Republican shill just like all the rest of them.

[Essene]

25. (hahaha) In fairness... he's been sayin it. It's just open GOP mutiny now.

And i think some of these old school Buckley-style conservatives are trying to position themselves for a frontal war against the social conservatives and their rise to power.

The GOP has a rough future ahead.

[ErinBerin84]

23. Brooks is schitzo.

I did find the part about Obama emailing him and saying "you only included Democrats as being partially responsible for the blame in your article to make yourself feel better" and Brooks saying "he was right"...as well as Brooks getting the tingle for Obama..to be pretty amusing. I get the impression that Brooks' stupid ""Two faces of Obama" article was really about Brooks own conflicting feelings over his Obama man crush.

[grantcart]

27. Brooks is completely dishonest having supported the war and continually stating

that everything will get better every 6 months.


This is simply people who realize that they are on the wrong side of history trying to lay markers so that after the landslide they can say that they called it.


This kind of comment would have been impressive if he had been saying it all along when the Bush administration has been attacking intellectual thought and science for the last 8 years.


Where is Brooks calling out Bush for being 'anti intellectual'when he edited scientists and their professional opinions?


I think that there is a huge difference between George Will who is conservative and keeps his own counsel and Brooks who has been giving intellectual cover for the war all these years. He has given the Iraq War intellectual respectability at every corner. I absolutely despise him.


I will say that atleast he can count and he has a sense of the Tsunami that is coming down his way. I suspect that he decided to start throwing McCain/Palin under the bus when he walks down the street or the halls at the NYT and hears the snickers trail behind him.