David Brooks: The Deeper Meaning of Sarah Palin

Unlike other predominantly progressive newspapers, the New York Times has a conservative columnist, David Brooks, as one of its op-ed writers. Brooks is a thoughtful writer with whose opinions I very frequently agree.

So, it was interesting to read this piece the other day. In the column, Brooks argues that there has always been a deep tension in America between what he calls "elitists" and "populists," a tension that shows up most starkly in the definition of "leadership."

Elitists, Brooks says, favor leaders who have a "classical education" (studying the history of civilizations and cultures), knowledge, experience and prudence. Populists, by contrast, are suspicious of universities and value simplicity, practical knowledge and "common sense." The differences can be boiled down to trusting sophistication or instinct.

No doubt about it: that conflict is playing itself out once again this year, with Barack Obama and Sarah Palin carrying the standards for their respective supporters.

It's fascinating to me that America continually plays out these big themes. Freud's great insight was that the present is a symbolic reliving of the past. I'm sure he's wryly puffing on a cigar and chuckling at the moment.

Take a look at Brooks' piece and share your thoughts.

Comments

[nondual]

tom, this vid from ken wilber discussing the near impossibility to bring highly developed/educated (~integrally thinking) people into leading positions (in a democracy) is also quite telling i think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv7R19xL9Is

[Bill D.]

First, I really like Brooks. His perspective is usually steeped in a larger historical context which I find very helpful. But I feel that this elitist/populist meme going around is really tied to old 20th Century ideals. We now live in a much better informed, much less hierarchial society. I don't think people in their 20's or 30's really connect to those populist/elitist labels. Its old Washington rhetoric. I think what is very 21st Century is the cultural/religous "war" that people identify with. It hides behind terms like conservative, liberal, small town, family values, freedom, and a slew of others. From my point of view, the biggest issues with Palin are her total lack on interest in foreign policy until she was named the VP candidate, and her inability to accurately represent her record. Since a major part of a VP's job is to stand in for the President at international events, it seems like her resume doesn't meet the bare minimum standards.

[Tom Guarriello]

@Nondual, thanks for the Wilber video. Very pertinent to this discussion.

@BillD, well, the "culture war" can easily be framed in populist/elitist terms, so I think the meme is still alive and well in Gen X and Gen Y as well as thriving in Boomers.

[Ken G.]

I'm sitting here thinking that this has got to be a false choice; that there must be an example of somebody with the "elitist" credentials (education, etc.) who managed to pull off a populist image and reputation - but I can't think of any offhand.

[Tom Guarriello]

Neither can I, Ken. Let me know if you do.

[Phil Davis]

The Brooks essay is excellent, and in the same vein as the complexity/simplicity discussion we've been having at VH. I think Roosevelt and Clinton managed to bridge the elitist/populist gap. While I agree with Bill D that we live in a more informed and less hierarchical age, at least in terms of current information, I don't think people are well informed about history. Seeing the patterns requires more than keeping up with what is happening right now.

[يوتيوب]

I think after this speech will be one of the visitors to this wonderful site Bstmrar Thank you to my friends