Does David Brooks represents a donkey's ass or an elephant's ass?
Does it really matter? David Brooks of the New York Times is an arrogant ass either way. Traditional grass root conservatives shouldn't be fooled for a minute into thinking that only pseudo elitists exist among liberal Democrats. That notion isn't true by a long shot. The Republican party has it's share of intellectual eggs heads who think they are better and smarter then the "common class" folks within the party. The ruling class elitism of the right was on full display back in 2005. The Republican leadership tried to label anyone who fought Bush's amnesty immigration bill as being a bunch of "nativists". There are people on the right who calls themselves conservative, yet they really don't have anything in common with "true" conservatives. There are two types of conservatives. One type is known as the "paleoconservatives" or "paleocons". The other type is known as "neoconservatives" or "neocons" for short. People like David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer are text book illustration of passes for neoconservatives. Liberals in their ever clueless fashion branded anyone who supported George Bush during his two terms as being "neocons". The term has been bastardized to hell and back by liberals. The definition of a neocon is a person who represents a new way of conservatism "watered down" that differs from traditional. Neo is the latin word for "new", hence "new conservative". Most neocons can't stand the taught nor the sight of paleconservatives within the Republican party. People like David Brooks look down on traditional grass root conservatives. The air for people like David Brooks of the New York Times is extremely thin. The reason is because, he always walk around with his head tilted to the sky. David doesn't like the Tea Party activists it appears. Frankly that doesn't come as a shock to me. This is what the pseudo conservative had to say about the "educated class versus the tea party crowd" in today's New York Times.
David Brooks "The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year".
David Brooks "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".
David Brooks "The story is the same in foreign affairs. The educated class is internationalist, so isolationist sentiment is now at an all-time high, according to a Pew Research Center survey. The educated class believes in multilateral action, so the number of Americans who believe we should “go our own way” has risen sharply.
David Brooks "A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity.…The Obama administration is premised on the conviction that pragmatic federal leaders with professional expertise should have the power to implement programs to solve the country’s problems. Many Americans do not have faith in that sort of centralized expertise or in the political class generally".
What the hell do I know? I'll use a term elitist Chuck Schummer used to describe the masses who oppose pork barrel spending. I guess I'm just a member of the "great American" chattering class.
I'm might not an ivy league wizard of smarts, but I am very gifted in the area of common sense. People like David Brooks can't comprehend the simple fact that the reason why Americans oppose the ideology of the "educated" class is, because people realize that book smart is a poor substitution for "logic. rationality and common sense". If David Brooks wasn't able to write for a liberal rag newspaper in New York City, he wouldn't know what to do with himself. He would be like a fish out of water. That goes for all the wanna be elitist on both sides of the aisle. If Republicans destroy Democrats in the midterm election in nine months, it won't be because of people like David Brooks influencing people on the right. It will be because true traditional conservatives will have risen up and said enough is enough and it is "time for a change". There is a reason why the Tea Party has a higher favorability rating then the Democrat and Republican party. I guess that doesn't register with Brooks. In the end, I guess it really doesn't mean anything but a hill of beans. David writes for a newspapers that fewer and fewer people read on a daily basis. Rush Limbaugh has more listeners per day then people who read the columns of David Brooks by at least 20 to 1. I bet it must have killed David Brooks and other neoconservatives knowing that Rush Limbaugh was named this year "the most influential conservative". In a nation that identifies itself as conservative over liberal by a 2 to 1 margin, here's a simple question. Do Americans have more in common with people like David Brooks of the New York Times or Rush Limbaugh? I'll put my money on Rush. Doesn't take an educated egghead to figure that one out