David Brooks: I'm an Easily-Gulled Buffoon

I'm glad we have elites to tell us po' bumpkins the way things really are.

Malkin's annoyed enough to write of Brooks' "Ivy League ejaculations."

She links this old but apropos Iowahawk piece mocking the effete Harvard half-assed intellectuals' embrace of Obama as "conservative."

To be honest, I'm a bit exhausted by this constant Caddyshack-esque spat between the so-called elites and the grassroots. I find the elites more annoying, but I'm also getting annoyed by the excesses of the resentments-stoking on the grassroots side where every dispute mutates into an us vs. them cultural Rangnarok.*

That said, if David Brooks can be so easily gulled and his supposed intellectual and cultural inferiors on the grassroots side cannot be, what purpose does he serve, exactly? Not only does he undermine the conservative cause and advance the liberal one, but he's just plain wrong along the way as he does so.

And he does it with a certain amount of refined arrogance to boot.

* I continue to think this is destructive. Perhaps we need some catharsis and bloodletting, but at some point we have to stop focusing on what divides the conservative movement and start focusing on dividing the liberals from the Reagan Democrats.

I suppose this is the best time for the catharsis and bloodletting. But still I grow weary of the red-on-somewhat-less-red infighting.**

** Actually, now that I think of it, is it possible that the so-called elites were partly turned off to Sarah Palin not merely because she was NQOCD (Not quite our class, dear), but because she vigorously attacked a man the so-called elites were warm to precisely because he was of part of the Harvard-Princeton axis about which the world turns?

Okay, now I'm getting pissed off again.

Sarah Palin wasn't taken in by Obama's easy, Ivy charm. Does that make her smarter than David Brooks?

Yeah, that Iowahawk piece is more true than funny, as it turns out.

posted by Ace at 01:55 PM

| Access Comments