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.
Recent Comments