Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Class War Before PalinFollow

#1 Oct 10 2008 at 12:10 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
This is an op-ed piece by David Brooks, the resident conservative at NY Times. His analysis is interesting in these times given GOPs attempts to be populists and their alienation of the educated classes:
Quote:



Modern conservatism began as a movement of dissident intellectuals. Richard Weaver wrote a book called, “Ideas Have Consequences.” Russell Kirk placed Edmund Burke in an American context. William F. Buckley famously said he’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. But he didn’t believe those were the only two options. His entire life was a celebration of urbane values, sophistication and the rigorous and constant application of intellect.



Driven by a need to engage elite opinion, conservatives tried to build an intellectual counterestablishment with think tanks and magazines. They disdained the ideas of the liberal professoriate, but they did not disdain the idea of a cultivated mind.

Ronald Reagan was no intellectual, but he had an earnest faith in ideas and he spent decades working through them. He was rooted in the Midwest, but he also loved Hollywood. And for a time, it seemed the Republican Party would be a broad coalition — small-town values with coastal reach.

In 1976, in a close election, Gerald Ford won the entire West Coast along with northeastern states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine. In 1984, Reagan won every state but Minnesota.


But over the past few decades, the Republican Party has driven away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts. This expulsion has had many causes. But the big one is this: Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare.
Democrats kept nominating coastal pointy-heads like Michael Dukakis so Republicans attacked coastal pointy-heads.

Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.

Republicans developed their own leadership style. If Democratic leaders prized deliberation and self-examination, then Republicans would govern from the gut.

George W. Bush restrained some of the populist excesses of his party — the anti-immigration fervor, the isolationism — but stylistically he fit right in. As Fred Barnes wrote in his book, “Rebel-in-Chief,” Bush “reflects the political views and cultural tastes of the vast majority of Americans who don’t live along the East or West Coast. He’s not a sophisticate and doesn’t spend his discretionary time with sophisticates. As First Lady Laura Bush once said, she and the president didn’t come to Washington to make new friends. And they haven’t.”

The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions — Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.

The Republicans have alienated whole professions.
Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.

This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clichés took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking “eastern elites.” (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.

Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.

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


The anti-intellectualism seems to be problematic and frustrating; it has hobbled the national republican party on the coasts who are continually reminded by the GOP that we aren't real Americans and they don't want our vote. It's funny to think that only 24 years ago, Reagan took almost every state, including New England. Now we could never imagine a politician bothering to reach to a broad cross section.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?hp
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#2 Oct 10 2008 at 12:27 PM Rating: Good
Commander Annabella wrote:
Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive.


I want some of what he's been smoking. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I've come to the conclusion that she's actually a total idiot who apparently had some pretty smart people working underneath her. I'll leave the rest of the article discussion to you elitist intellectuals while I ponder the consumption of a six pack or two myself.

Edited, Oct 10th 2008 3:20pm by BrownDuck
#3 Oct 10 2008 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
Commander Annabella wrote:
The anti-intellectualism seems to be problematic and frustrating; it has hobbled the national republican party on the coasts who are continually reminded by the GOP that we aren't real Americans and they don't want our vote. It's funny to think that only 24 years ago, Reagan took almost every state, including New England. Now we could never imagine a politician bothering to reach to a broad cross section.
And it cuts back the other way as well. There used to be discourse. Now after so much of this divisive us-vs-them mentality, it's difficult to remember that the typical Republican voter is not, in fact, a vacuous unthinking meatbag.

I think in the past people from the urban centers and rural country identified more closely with one another. There was a lot more common ground. Now it's like we're two countries constrained within a single border.
#4 Oct 10 2008 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Republicans aren't incredibly popular with joe six packs, as I understand the term. Democrat are favored by those with no college education, working class, and those with a masters or higher. They grab strongly from both ends of the spectrum, but are weak in the middle. Republicans are strongest among those with some college or a bachelors degree.
#5 Oct 10 2008 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Quote:
And it cuts back the other way as well. There used to be discourse. Now after so much of this divisive us-vs-them mentality, it's difficult to remember that the typical Republican voter is not, in fact, a vacuous unthinking meatbag.


It's shocking at times to hear the way my colleagues typify the typical republican voter, often invoking things about that they are all dunderheaded racists who embrace creationism. I do try to say things like the fact that they are complaining about being called elitist and yet what they say is incredibly elitist. It's gotten very bad. In the end, you have a broad group of voters not being served at all by either party.

____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#6 Oct 10 2008 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Commander Annabella wrote:
It's shocking at times to hear the way my colleagues typify the typical republican voter, often invoking things about that they are all dunderheaded racists who embrace creationism.
They're all like Varrus? Smiley: eek
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Oct 10 2008 at 12:52 PM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
I hate the term Joe Six-pack. I think it is condescending and not "folksy" at all. I must be in the minority though, because Sarah uses that term more than her other catch phrases. Must be testing well with SOMEONE.
#8 Oct 10 2008 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
baelnic wrote:
Sarah uses that term more than her other catch phrases


More than MAV'RICK?

I think not.
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#9 Oct 10 2008 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
baelnic wrote:
I hate the term Joe Six-pack. I think it is condescending and not "folksy" at all. I must be in the minority though, because Sarah uses that term more than her other catch phrases. Must be testing well with SOMEONE.


Today's Bad Reporter, in part:

Screenshot


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#10 Oct 10 2008 at 1:04 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
It's shocking at times to hear the way my colleagues typify the typical republican voter, often invoking things about that they are all dunderheaded racists who embrace creationism. I do try to say things like the fact that they are complaining about being called elitist and yet what they say is incredibly elitist. It's gotten very bad. In the end, you have a broad group of voters not being served at all by either party.


This is Boston, dear. If they live here and still hold onto those conservative ideals, they ARE "dunderheaded racists who embrace creationism".
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#11 Oct 10 2008 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
It's shocking at times to hear the way my colleagues typify the typical republican voter, often invoking things about that they are all dunderheaded racists who embrace creationism. I do try to say things like the fact that they are complaining about being called elitist and yet what they say is incredibly elitist. It's gotten very bad. In the end, you have a broad group of voters not being served at all by either party.


This is Boston, dear. If they live here and still hold onto those conservative ideals, they ARE "dunderheaded racists who embrace creationism".


But I grew up in Maine, the land where Moderate Republicans run free. Where they are republicans that even I respect.

<3 Bill Cohen. And you know, I like the current Senators, though I never voted for either one of them.

Why can't the rest of the US be more like Maine? Maine is actually much more the maverick state than almost anyone, including having Angus be a former independent governor.



Edited, Oct 10th 2008 5:05pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#12 Oct 10 2008 at 1:16 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Mindel wrote:
And it cuts back the other way as well. There used to be discourse. Now after so much of this divisive us-vs-them mentality, it's difficult to remember that the typical Republican voter is not, in fact, a vacuous unthinking meatbag.

It's hard for me to agree with that, at least as far as the social aspect of each party is concerned.

Before I became more informed I initially assumed, as many independents do, that both both parties were quite zealous and each believing they had the correct answer, when there was no obvious correct answer. I thought it was a shouting fest. As I learned more about both I saw the main split in social policy. Social policies on the Republican side tend to represent what most believe is the moral choice, and social policies for Democrats tend to represent the practical choice. I do see substituting ideals for reality as vacuous.

I am not trying to be inflammatory, but rather trying to present how I view the situation. I want to know why you see equivalency where I do not.
Mindel wrote:
I think in the past people from the urban centers and rural country identified more closely with one another. There was a lot more common ground. Now it's like we're two countries constrained within a single border.

I'm not sure whether this is true for the majority of Americans.

We have two very polar parties. Not only that, they are aligned in nearly parallel (in a vector space) with the spectrum of ideals most people have. A gain for one party is pretty much a direct loss for the other.

Edited, Oct 10th 2008 4:23pm by Allegory
#13 Oct 10 2008 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,829 posts
BrownDuck the Wise wrote:
Commander Annabella wrote:
Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive.


I want some of what he's been smoking. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I've come to the conclusion that she's actually a total idiot who apparently had some pretty smart people working underneath her. I'll leave the rest of the article discussion to you elitist intellectuals while I ponder the consumption of a six pack or two myself.

Edited, Oct 10th 2008 3:20pm by BrownDuck


Well, to be fair, her debate performance DID leave an impression. So I guess you could call it impressive...Smiley: dubious
#14 Oct 10 2008 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
This is Boston, dear. If they live here and still hold onto those conservative ideals, they ARE "dunderheaded racists who embrace creationism".


I grew up in NH, where there are quite a few Pubbies as well. It seemed that for every Conservative who was Republican for the "right" reasons (They made a lot of money, were VERY Christian, liked Big Guns, or wanted smaller Government) there were 5 others who were Republican for no other reason than that they were racist ignorant hicks.

But, there are stupid people everywhere. One of my first co workers after moving to Boston was an elderly black lady that voted republican for YEARS for no other reason than her Dad told her back in the day that "If he couldn't choose, he voted Republican."

I mean, he was voting PRE Civil Rights and she just chose not to be informed.

I explained the people behind the Civil Rights movement too her & She's corrected her mistake.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#15 Oct 10 2008 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So... has McCain (and Palin) managed to work their crowd up over the tipping point?
Politico wrote:
Working to dampen the angry crowd meme, McCain tells his Minnesota rally to take it easy, Amie Parnes reports:

At a town hall in Minnesota, McCain tried to tone down a week of raucus, angry crowds after one man stood up and said: "We want you to fight."

"The people here in Minnesota want to see a real fight. We want a strong president to lead us through the next four years."

"I think I got my marching orders," McCain said. But then he shifted tones.

"I am enthusiastic and encouraged by the enthusiasm and I think it's really good," McCain said. "We have to fight and i will fight but we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments and I want to be respectful."

[...]
Later in the event, man in the audience stood up and told McCain he's "scared" of an Obama presidency and who he'd select for the Supreme Court.

"I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don't have to be scared of as president of the United States," McCain said as the crowd booed and shouted "Come on, John!"
Classy stuff.

Edit: You can see video of the rally here. I'll credit McCain with his later comment about Obama being a "decent family man" but, really, he's working at this point to tamp down the flames that his campaign intentionally created to try to get a polling boost.

Edited, Oct 10th 2008 7:28pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Oct 10 2008 at 4:28 PM Rating: Decent
Allegory wrote:
We have two very polar parties. Not only that, they are aligned in nearly parallel (in a vector space) with the spectrum of ideals most people have. A gain for one party is pretty much a direct loss for the other.
Really, that puts them as more coterminal and anti-parallel.

And, to make a bad vector math-meets-politics pun, the field they are in is not conservative.
#17 Oct 10 2008 at 5:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I don't really buy the full story Brooks is throwing out there though. While there certainly is the liberal elitist stereotype among Republicans toward many Liberals, I don't think that's ever been applied to educated people as a whole. We tend to apply the label to people who actually express views or take actions that we view as elitist. Like when a group of people adopt an ideology that assumes that they know better how people should live their lives then the people themselves, we tend to view that as elitism. That those doing this tend to often be Liberals who attended a specific set of universities isn't coincidental, but also not something that's the fault of Republicans by any stretch of the imagination.

I just don't see that this is reflective of Republicans "pushing educated people away", so much as Democrats actively pushing the idea that educated==liberal. How many times have you ever seen a Conservative on this board point to a survey showing which education levels voted in what percentage for what candidate and argue that this just proves that Dem candidates are elitists? Probably never. Um... I know that the opposite argument has been made repeatedly by several of the more liberal members of this board, and supported by pretty much all the rest.

I've frankly lost count of the "see how many more people with advanced degrees voted for <insert Dem here>!!!" arguments, followed up with some sort of conclusion that this means that the Dem candidate must be better because smarter people voted for him. Same thing for the assumption that the mere fact that one is a conservative means they're somehow less educated and/or less intelligent. And let's not forget the number of times that regardless of the actual argument(s) made by conservatives on an issue, it's often ignored and countered as though the conservative must have made one based on religion instead. I pointed out in a gay marriage thread once that in the first 50 posts not a single conservative poster had mentioned religion at all, but about a dozen liberals had made arguments essentially assuming that religion was the basis for any disagreement with gay marriage. The assumption the "Conservative==Ignorant Religious fanatic" seems to run just as deep as the "Liberal==educated" one, and it's really hard to miss...


IMO, the Dems started this form of class warfare (not even sure that's the correct term) looooong ago. The Republican disdain for those who engage in it is a result of that, not the cause of it. Democrats were recruiting on college campuses and encouraging liberal thought, hiring of liberal educators, and ultimately the education or indoctrination (depending on your viewpoint) of each successive generation of students into a liberal worldview going back to the late 50s. I just don't see how anyone can say that this divide was caused by Republicans.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Oct 10 2008 at 5:30 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji do you not think that Republicans reaching out to Christian conservatives has been a significant force driving educated individuals away from the party?
#19gbaji, Posted: Oct 10 2008 at 5:42 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You might want to have someone explain it to you first. Pretty much all the people opposed to the civil rights movement were Democrats. Fortunately, most of the rest of the country disagreed with them...
#20 Oct 10 2008 at 5:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji do you not think that Republicans reaching out to Christian conservatives has been a significant force driving educated individuals away from the party?


Two points:

1. That occurred sometime in the late 70s and early 80s. Long after the Democrats had been pretty actively using university professors to push their own agenda (or vice versa depending on how you look at it). The "Religious Right" formed in response to a growing secular movement, which was itself largely coming from the more liberal education institutions. Republicans didn't reach out to the Religious Right, the Religious Right reached out to the Republican party to protect them from what they viewed as an attack on their faith.


2. Why do you assume that people who are Christian can't be educated? Aren't you committing the exact kind of assumptive stereotype I just talked about? What's funny is that this is pure perception. For most of this country's history, the best centers for education were run by religious institutions. It's only been very recently that this has changed, and I would suggest it was done deliberately as part of that same secular movement. Specifically, the universities that sprung up to support the need from the GI bill were largely established as secular institutions and adopted much more liberal instruction then institutions in the past. There's a lot more to it than that, but I really do think that you've got the direction and order of change backwards.




Ask yourself where your assumptions about this come from. You might just be surprised...

Edited, Oct 10th 2008 6:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Oct 10 2008 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
You might want to have someone explain it to you first. Pretty much all the people opposed to the civil rights movement were Democrats. Fortunately, most of the rest of the country disagreed with them...


Smiley: laugh

You're funny.

While I admit that many Democrats in the South maintained their ignorant stances in regards to the Civil Rights act, so did the Pubbies. In fact, the vote was mainly along the N/S divide, not party lines.

Wiki Says, in regards to the Civil Rights Act Vote

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

Oh, & who introduced the Bill?
JFK- Dem.

Who got it passed?
LBJ- Dem.

Oh, and why did most blacks vote Democrat before that?
Cause of the New Deal, care of FDR- Dem.

You get to keep Lincoln, however.



____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#22gbaji, Posted: Oct 10 2008 at 6:54 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ah. You said "civil rights movement". Not Act. Those are two different things you know...
#23 Oct 10 2008 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
gbaji wrote:
Republicans didn't reach out to the Religious Right, the Religious Right reached out to the Republican party to protect them from what they viewed as an attack on their faith.

It really doesn't matter who came to who first. Currently Republicans have been catering significantly to conservative Christians in their social policy. You have already agreed that, for whatever reason, higher educated individuals have a strong showing of secularism and liberalism. If I start handing out hot dogs, and shorten my supply of hamburgers to sell more hot dogs, then people who like hot dogs are going to flock to me and people who like hamburgers will be driven away. The Republican party shifted its focus to cater more to religious conservatives and consequently drove away secular liberals. Secular liberals make up a significant part of the higher educated demographic, and thus by driving away secular liberals the Republicans also drove away many highly educated individuals.
gbaji wrote:
2. Why do you assume that people who are Christian can't be educated?

I'm not assuming anything, nor did I imply what you asserted I did. All I have done is look at population statistics. Christian conservatism tends to decrease with increases in education level. You also dropped off the conservative part of qualifier, which does matter. Please accurately read what I have written.

Edited, Oct 10th 2008 9:55pm by Allegory
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 191 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (191)