The Elitism of David Brooks

While it is not my custom to attack lowly Op-Ed writers or to attack members of my side of the political isle, I feel I must finally retort the assertions of the New York Time's token right-winger, David Brooks.

Mr. Brooks has long irked many in the conservative movement for being, well, not a conservative on pretty much any major policy discussion. His inclination is always to attack the right and say how it's damaging the GOP or America in general. He always pushes moderation when conservatives push core values. I would call Mr. Brooks a sell out, but that would imply he was ever a serious "conservative" thinker in the first place. To be blunt, Mr. Brooks is as he called Sarah Palin, a joke.

Let's take his most recent column as an example. The very title, "Tea Party Teens", should offend anyone who has attended or sympathizes with the Tea Party platform. Not to be denied, Brooks writes yet another article bashing the Tea Party, but this time he reveals his true beef with them.

He begins oddly with an almost justification for anti-washington sentiment...

The United States opens this decade in a sour mood. First, Americans are anxious about the future. Sixty-one percent of Americans believe the country is in decline, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey. Only 27 percent feel confident that their children’s generation will be better off than they are.

Second, Americans have lost faith in their institutions. During the great moments of social reform, at least 60 percent of Americans trusted government to do the right thing most of the time. Now, only a quarter have that kind of trust.

The country is evenly divided about President Obama, but state governments are in disrepute and confidence in Congress is at withering lows. As Frank Newport of the Gallup organization noted in his year-end wrap-up, “Americans have less faith in their elected representatives than ever before.”

Third, the new administration has not galvanized a popular majority. In almost every sphere of public opinion, Americans are moving away from the administration, not toward it. The Ipsos/McClatchy organizations have been asking voters which party can do the best job of handling a range of 13 different issues. During the first year of the Obama administration, the Republicans gained ground on all 13.

My translation, the "hope-ium" has worn off. We are more divided than ever. President Obama is pursuing policies that will damage our nation. Okay, blah blah blah. We've heard this before. What gets quite odd and offensive is the next part...

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.

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.

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.

A year ago, the Obama supporters were the passionate ones. Now the tea party brigades have all the intensity.

This harkens back to the famous beginning of Laura Ingraham's book "Shut up and Sing". It began with, "They think you're stupid". That's exactly what Mr. Brooks is saying. The only reason President Obama's policies are being opposed is because of a knee-jerk reaction against "the smart people". That predisposes anyone who substantively opposes the policy as an "anti-intellectual" the essence of elitism. The oh so smart and intellectual David Brooks will expose the ignorance of the anti-intellectuals and their stupid, redneck ways. This sounds eerily like a college professor talking to one of his young, naive students. Brooks even calls his critics "Teens" in the title of his piece.

What's even more comical is Brooks' attempt at defining the movement- keyword "amateur"...

The tea party movement is a large, fractious confederation of Americans who are defined by what they are against. They are against the concentrated power of the educated class. They believe big government, big business, big media and the affluent professionals are merging to form self-serving oligarchy — with bloated government, unsustainable deficits, high taxes and intrusive regulation.

The tea party movement is mostly famous for its flamboyant fringe. But it is now more popular than either major party. According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 41 percent of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement. Only 35 percent of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28 percent have a positive view of the Republican Party.

The movement is especially popular among independents. The Rasmussen organization asked independent voters whom they would support in a generic election between a Democrat, a Republican and a tea party candidate. The tea party candidate won, with 33 percent of independents. Undecided came in second with 30 percent. The Democrats came in third with 25 percent and the Republicans fourth with 12 percent.

Over the course of this year, the tea party movement will probably be transformed. Right now, it is an amateurish movement with mediocre leadership. But several bright and polished politicians, like Marco Rubio of Florida and Gary Johnson of New Mexico, are unofficially competing to become its de facto leader. If they succeed, their movement is likely to outgrow its crude beginnings and become a major force in American politics. After all, it represents arguments that are deeply rooted in American history.

I assume Mr. Brooks sees this movement as a threat to his "smart" friends. I also assume that Brooks subscribes to the "tyranny of the experts" in policy making. The small, smart, intellectual elite should make the policy for the large, stupid, misinformed populous. And he wonders why populist movements are sprouting in America? People don't like being told they're dumb, or childish. They don't take to well to people who would transform our system of government into something that's run by todays royalty, experts and intellectuals. This is, after all the classic liberal model, they can live your life better than you can, because you're the dumb, neanderthal who needs a master to keep you on the right track.

I have some news for David Brooks, this country is of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE. Every person, no matter how smart or stupid, informed or misinformed, intellectual or proctor of common sense.

David Brooks is not evil, and he's not a naive teen as he paints his opponents, he's just wrong. Mr. Brooks is simply a misguided elitist who needs to get in touch with the American people again.