Yep. With the moderates and intellectuals chased out of the party, all they have left is the echo chamber.

The joke's on them. There are no intellectuals among the liberals.

Capitalist1: The joke's on them. There are no intellectuals among the liberals.

No, you have to go to a Palin rally to find the best and brightest, right?

hehe...

We don't need y'all smart people. Go to your smartiversity and write your smarssertation

Wow, David Brooks making sense? I'm shocked.

I had some very intelligent, conservative professors in college (University of Arizona and ASU). I liked that they could back up their position with FACTS. Right-wing-nuts would have you believe that universities shun and embarrass conservative professors, but it's just not true.

Any "conservative" on TV is an intellectual retard and probably couldn't get over 900 on a modern SAT.

Capitalist1: The joke's on them. There are no intellectuals among the liberals.

yeah, come on back on November 5th. That sound you hear are all the smart, educated people who kicked McCain's ass.

Oh bah. Two of my very best and smartest professors were total opposites on the political spectrum.

RobertBruce: Oh bah. Two of my very best and smartest professors were total opposites on the political spectrum.

You betcha

David Brooks, you have been a smart and effective conservative voice. But I find it impossible to believe you have only now come to this conclusion which has been so obvious for some years now.

In short, "Duh!"

Yeah, I don't like David Brooks, but this is very insightful.

I wonder who wrote it for him?

:)

The best quote FTA: 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.

And-1: Yeah, I don't like David Brooks, but this is very insightful.

I wonder who wrote it for him?

:)

Well, he's been writing articles like that for the past couple of months, so some say he's trying to get in the good graces of the new administration/congress.

I don't think so. I've been reading him for a while and while he's a conservative he writes about a wide variety of issues and isn't usually a hardcore partisan.

83 and Plane Crash McCain represent that slippery slope that has a logical conclusion in what happened in Cambodia all those years ago.

You get rid of all the educated people, 'cause it's a whole lot easier maintaining your rotten grip on power when the people you have to suppress are just slighter dumber than yourself.

The ball is rolling - it remains to be seen whether the average American is actually smart enough to see how dangerous the political climate is becoming, or whether they roll over and vote in (again) the kind of person who would love to spit in their monobrowed, generationally deformed faces.

/me? I'm not a fan of any average anyone, but I'm not running for high office.

You mean the party of Creationism, Terri-Schiavo-is-getting-better, a 6000-year-old Earth, no-stem-cell-research-because-they're-really-babies, etc., etc., doesn't like educated people?

What a surprise!

The man is making a valid point. Before Reagan republicans weren't always like this. The trend has gotten much worse as the Evangelicals hijacked the party. The first thing to go was the political discourse, reasoned conservative intellectualism was bullied out of right wing public discussion. Conservative intellectuals continued to support the party based on conservative values but couldn't win public offices without representing the sort of faith based politics that they know is beneath them. Even today many of these conservatives are still supporting conservative agendas but have withdrawn to the non-elected power centers of the Government, bureaucracy, think tanks, and advisory and appointed positions.

Left leaning people should not feel so perfect either. The left is also plagued by the ideologies of socialism and the legacy of the half-baked 60's counter-culture and anti-war movements. My own impression is that the modern conservative movement is dominated by voters who are largely ignorant of all the issues, while the left is dominated by those whose who are educated enough to know the issues and sympathize with the other, but aren't educated enough to realize the complexities of economic and political questions, particularly the logic of collective action. Unfortunately, with such problems, if you only get knee deep in your understanding, your conclusions can be just as dangerous or more so than those who know nothing.

RobsterCraw: Left leaning people should not feel so perfect either. The left is also plagued by the ideologies of socialism and the legacy of the half-baked 60's counter-culture and anti-war movements.
So, any valid statements you said prior to this is lost to time. You are are the same as an fark stick that views the world as us vs. them

RobsterCraw: The left is also plagued by the ideologies of socialism and the legacy of the half-baked 60's counter-culture and anti-war movements

Yeah, because being against the Vietnam War and in favor of civil rights for black people turned out to be sooooo wrong in the long run.

Confabulat: RobsterCraw: The left is also plagued by the ideologies of socialism and the legacy of the half-baked 60's counter-culture and anti-war movements

Yeah, because being against the Vietnam War and in favor of civil rights for black people turned out to be sooooo wrong in the long run.

He. Is. farking. With. You.

I regret spending so much time reponding to his shiat;

But that is what he is doing. He isn't even astroturfing.

BuckTurgidson: David Brooks, you have been a smart and effective conservative voice. But I find it impossible to believe you have only now come to this conclusion which has been so obvious for some years now.

In short, "Duh!"

It's politically safer to write it right now, I would imagine.

RobsterCraw: Left leaning people should not feel so perfect either. The left is also plagued by the ideologies of socialism and the legacy of the half-baked 60's counter-culture and anti-war movements. My own impression is that the modern conservative movement is dominated by voters who are largely ignorant of all the issues, while the left is dominated by those whose who are educated enough to know the issues and sympathize with the other, but aren't educated enough to realize the complexities of economic and political questions, particularly the logic of collective action. Unfortunately, with such problems, if you only get knee deep in your understanding, your conclusions can be just as dangerous or more so than those who know nothing.

What's wrong with socialism? How much of the left is really socialist?

Why doesn't the left "realize the complexities of economic and political questions, particularly the logic of collective action?"

Who is only "knee-deep in [their] understanding?"

William F. Buckley was a staunch conservative. I may have vehemently disagreed with his basic viewpoint, but he was definitely not an idiot. I respected his intelligence. The Buckleys of today are letting their party be dominated by the ignorant redneck masses.

It's been happening since George W. was elected. Granted, people like Pat Buchanan were always a part of the Right, they weren't taken seriously. Palin's part of them and could very well be in the White House soon.

Surprisingly, even Christopher Buckley is abandoning the GOP for Obama.... To me, that's a very telling sign that the GOP is so interested in winning that it will play to the lowest common denominator rather than maintaining a standard of excellence and losing with pride...

But then, I guess they threw away all consideration for 'excellence' when they ran George W. Bush in 2000.

Your shiat's all retarded and you talk like a fag

slobarnuts: RobsterCraw: Left leaning people should not feel so perfect either. The left is also plagued by the ideologies of socialism and the legacy of the half-baked 60's counter-culture and anti-war movements.
So, any valid statements you said prior to this is lost to time. You are are the same as an fark stick that views the world as us vs. them

You are mistaking my statements. I was no inferring any blanket relative power generalizations. My point is that all too often on the left, the solution to conflict is the kind of "let's all get along" type solution that is dismissive of the realities of state relations and human behavior. The right takes much the alternative perspective, where they assume that it is "us vs. them" and they often believe that this cannot change fundamentally.
Neither of these views is correct. Being conscious of the fundamental reasons why there is conflict and why these conflicts arise is not at all the same as preferring them. If you better understand the system that exists and WHY it exists you can take steps to lessen those conflicts and promote a beneficial social and world order. Dismissing the WHY, leads idealist policy approaches that simply do not have the intended effect.

I didn't mention at all the Civil Rights movement in my previous statement. It is a mistake not to differentiate the various political movements of the 1960's. Although the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement had much overlap, they are distinct for the purpose of my argument. Any one of you is welcome to view my postings in other threads, you may get a better understanding of where I am coming from. I am not party affiliated. I probably would vote democratic in this federal election if there were any shed of possibility that my congressional district was not already decided and if my states electoral votes were up for grabs (I am Californian, they are not up for grabs, Dems take all). Perhaps some of you thought that I was one of the alienated conservative intellectuals that I described. I am not.

My criticism of the left is qualified by my position that the political discourse of the left is far more open to intellectualism than the right. However, that doesn't conflict with my statements about the ideologies of the left. The basis of this criticism is best understood through the appreciation of what Francis Bacon meant when he described the four idols of the mind. Particularly what Bacon calls the "idol of the theater".
Here is a direct quote:

"Lastly, there are idols which have immigrated into men's minds from the various dogmas of philosophies, and also from wrong laws of demonstration. These I call Idols of the Theater; because in my judgment all the received systems are but so many stage-plays, representing worlds of their own creation after an unreal and scenic fashion. Nor is it only of the systems now in vogue, or only of the ancient sects and philosophies, that I speak: for many more plays of the same kind may yet be composed and in like artificial manner set forth; seeing that errors the most widely different have nevertheless causes for the most part alike. Neither again do I mean this only of entire systems, but also of many principles and axioms in science, which by tradition, credulity, and negligence have come to be received. "

The point Bacon is making is that entire logical constructs, which may be wholly internally consistent can be completely false because they are founded upon false assumptions. Socialism is a good case because if Marx's assumptions about human behavior had been correct, he may have devised the prototypical perfect society. However, he was not, and his perversion of history to support his assumptions is evidence of that. On the American left, socialism as a revolutionary ideology is not actually the real problem. Rather, the failure to understand the system of economic incentives and the distortions that are caused be various interventions. This is not to say that I believe in complete Laissez Faire but I am aware, as many are not, that public welfare programs and redistributive policies have unintended effects and governments must carefully balance their positive effects with the negative to ensure a maximum of public good. While conservatives often oppose welfare handouts to the less fortunate because they are unsympathetic or worse, well trained economists are also weary (although not ideologically opposed) of such public welfare subsidies because of the way it distorts individual's economic incentives. Think of the past case of Germany, and why they had over 4 million people unemployed at one point. The government policies effectively gave more to the unemployed in benefits than was attainable while working at minimum wage. Meaning for the unskilled German worker, it actually paid more not to work than to be employed. All societies have people who need the support of others and our values require that we help to lessen their misery, however it is a very difficult problem to help those who truly need help without encouraging the freeriding of those who are not truly needy. Obviously, this is a very basic treatment of a much more complex issue, but I am not about to write a political economy textbook in a Fark thread, although I do encourage as many of you as is possible to investigate these issues.

RobsterCraw: The basis of this criticism is best understood through the appreciation of what Francis Bacon meant when he described the four idols of the mind.

This is not how Fark works. If you want to discuss, in boring detail, your philosophy of economics, go write a blog. This "classical liberal" is here for the snark.

RobsterCraw: On the American left, socialism as a revolutionary ideology is not actually the real problem. Rather, the failure to understand the system of economic incentives and the distortions that are caused be various interventions. This is not to say that I believe in complete Laissez Faire but I am aware, as many are not, that public welfare programs and redistributive policies have unintended effects and governments must carefully balance their positive effects with the negative to ensure a maximum of public good. While conservatives often oppose welfare handouts to the less fortunate because they are unsympathetic or worse, well trained economists are also weary (although not ideologically opposed) of such public welfare subsidies because of the way it distorts individual's economic incentives. Think of the past case of Germany, and why they had over 4 million people unemployed at one point. The government policies effectively gave more to the unemployed in benefits than was attainable while working at minimum wage. Meaning for the unskilled German worker, it actually paid more not to work than to be employed. All societies have people who need the support of others and our values require that we help to lessen their misery, however it is a very difficult problem to help those who truly need help without encouraging the freeriding of those who are not truly needy. Obviously, this is a very basic treatment of a much more complex issue, but I am not about to write a political economy textbook in a Fark thread, although I do encourage as many of you as is possible to investigate these issues.

Just as Adam Smith has not been the sole worker and authoritarian upon the eyes of Capitalism, Marx was not the only speaker for the values of Governmental production and placing value upon more than myopic perceptions of capital. You seek not to argue upon the unique premises of the various economic poles; yet, you reduce your argument to a limited understanding of a basic premise upon which capitalistic theory argues a singular scope of human emotion. A basic study of American socialistic policy quickly evinces that it is often complex governmental authority that simply fails to create a situation where it is cheaper and easier to live on welfare than work. For any policy you will always have the disadvantage of free riders; however, the abuse of few should not outweigh the benefit of multitude. We do not close highways because some people speed. We do not ban speech because some people speak ignorance with power. We should not obstruct freedom because some people will abuse it. We should not place ourselves above others because of cynicism and greed. Society is both a right and responsibility- you must demand inclusion and put forth effort to maintain it. Bacon is correct that ideologies can be self-fulfilling prophesies: the assumptions of free market capitalism and it's conclusions about human emotion are both myopic and very rarely imitated in real life.

Lay not down to rest in the grave of your opponent. Capitalism and Socialism have applications, validity, and merit. We offer naught to intellectualism to further a debate that remains saddled with examples of destruction and failure upon both fronts, entwined and entrenched in the politics and warfare of victory rather than accomplishment.

Jeremy Bates: If only someone had written some kind of book about this rampant anti-intellectualism.

Oh come on! How can a book that was written 46 years ago have any relevance today? Now, let's open up the Bible and see what it has to say about the matter.

RobsterCraw: The man is making a valid point. Before Reagan republicans weren't always like this. The trend has gotten much worse as the Evangelicals hijacked the party. The first thing to go was the political discourse, reasoned conservative intellectualism was bullied out of right wing public discussion. Conservative intellectuals continued to support the party based on conservative values but couldn't win public offices without representing the sort of faith based politics that they know is beneath them. Even today many of these conservatives are still supporting conservative agendas but have withdrawn to the non-elected power centers of the Government, bureaucracy, think tanks, and advisory and appointed positions.

Left leaning people should not feel so perfect either. The left is also plagued by the ideologies of socialism and the legacy of the half-baked 60's counter-culture and anti-war movements. My own impression is that the modern conservative movement is dominated by voters who are largely ignorant of all the issues, while the left is dominated by those whose who are educated enough to know the issues and sympathize with the other, but aren't educated enough to realize the complexities of economic and political questions, particularly the logic of collective action. Unfortunately, with such problems, if you only get knee deep in your understanding, your conclusions can be just as dangerous or more so than those who know nothing.

The Evangelicals didn't hijack the party. It was the GOP's decision to pander to them.

FTFA: Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive.


No and no

Goose-stepping morons should try reading books instead of burning them.

RobsterCraw: slobarnuts: RobsterCraw: Left leaning people should not feel so perfect either. The left is also plagued by the ideologies of socialism and the legacy of the half-baked 60's counter-culture and anti-war movements.
So, any valid statements you said prior to this is lost to time. You are are the same as an fark stick that views the world as us vs. them

You are mistaking my statements. I was no inferring any blanket relative power generalizations. My point is that all too often on the left, the solution to conflict is the kind of "let's all get along" type solution that is dismissive of the realities of state relations and human behavior. The right takes much the alternative perspective, where they assume that it is "us vs. them" and they often believe that this cannot change fundamentally.
Neither of these views is correct. Being conscious of the fundamental reasons why there is conflict and why these conflicts arise is not at all the same as preferring them. If you better understand the system that exists and WHY it exists you can take steps to lessen those conflicts and promote a beneficial social and world order. Dismissing the WHY, leads idealist policy approaches that simply do not have the intended effect.

I didn't mention at all the Civil Rights movement in my previous statement. It is a mistake not to differentiate the various political movements of the 1960's. Although the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement had much overlap, they are distinct for the purpose of my argument. Any one of you is welcome to view my postings in other threads, you may get a better understanding of where I am coming from. I am not party affiliated. I probably would vote democratic in this federal election if there were any shed of possibility that my congressional district was not already decided and if my states electoral votes were up for grabs (I am Californian, they are not up for grabs, Dems take all). Perhaps some of you thought that I was one of the alienated conservative intellectuals that I described. I am not.

My criticism of the left is qualified by my position that the political discourse of the left is far more open to intellectualism than the right. However, that doesn't conflict with my statements about the ideologies of the left. The basis of this criticism is best understood through the appreciation of what Francis Bacon meant when he described the four idols of the mind. Particularly what Bacon calls the "idol of the theater".
Here is a direct quote:

"Lastly, there are idols which have immigrated into men's minds from the various dogmas of philosophies, and also from wrong laws of demonstration. These I call Idols of the Theater; because in my judgment all the received systems are but so many stage-plays, representing worlds of their own creation after an unreal and scenic fashion. Nor is it only of the systems now in vogue, or only of the ancient sects and philosophies, that I speak: for many more plays of the same kind may yet be composed and in like artificial manner set forth; seeing that errors the most widely different have nevertheless causes for the most part alike. Neither again do I mean this only of entire systems, but also of many principles and axioms in science, which by tradition, credulity, and negligence have come to be received. "

The point Bacon is making is that entire logical constructs, which may be wholly internally consistent can be completely false because they are founded upon false assumptions. Socialism is a good case because if Marx's assumptions about human behavior had been correct, he may have devised the prototypical perfect society. However, he was not, and his perversion of history to support his assumptions is evidence of that. On the American left, socialism as a revolutionary ideology is not actually the real problem. Rather, the failure to understand the system of economic incentives and the distortions that are caused be various interventions. This is not to say that I believe in complete Laissez Faire but I am aware, as many are not, that public welfare programs ...

You use too many words. You cannot be trusted.

Romero must have tipped him off.

/as television dumbed things down, can the internet smarten them up?

Canada is a socialist country.

We live just fine here, and we don't have to deal with as much crime (one reason being because weed isn't the demon weed here, nor are half of the batshiat crazy laws of the U.S) nor as much political bullshiat. We also have a much more polite and intelligent news media in general, and we don't have "Health Care Malls" (Bangor, Maine).

So yea, socialism actually isn't the devil. World's strongest banking system (not that that may mean anything in the end) ftw!

CynicalLA: The Evangelicals didn't hijack the party. It was the GOP's decision to pander to them.

The Fundamentalists hijacked the party; not the evangelicals.
There's a difference. The fundis believe the Bible should be taken literally whereas the evangelicals are more diversified. Fundamentalist didn't like the label Fundamentalist because it puts them in the same box as radical Islam so they changed their label to evangelical.
Here's a link (new window).

RockofAges: Canada is a socialist country.

We live just fine here, and we don't have to deal with as much crime (one reason being because weed isn't the demon weed here, nor are half of the batshiat crazy laws of the U.S) nor as much political bullshiat. We also have a much more polite and intelligent news media in general, and we don't have "Health Care Malls" (Bangor, Maine).

So yea, socialism actually isn't the devil. World's strongest banking system (not that that may mean anything in the end) ftw!

The Republicans were able to turn Liberal and Socialism into dirty words. Most of the people that are against it, don't even know the definition.

Muta: CynicalLA: The Evangelicals didn't hijack the party. It was the GOP's decision to pander to them.

The Fundamentalists hijacked the party; not the evangelicals.
There's a difference. The fundis believe the Bible should be taken literally whereas the evangelicals are more diversified. Fundamentalist didn't like the label Fundamentalist because it puts them in the same box as radical Islam so they changed their label to evangelical.
Here's a link (new window).

They let them in because they wanted to win. Reagan saw how it helped Carter and Falwell's moral majority was born.

During the 1980 presidential election, the Moral Majority is credited with giving Ronald Reagan two-thirds of the white evangelical vote, over Jimmy Carter

It's always the same with these Harvard graduates. Just look at Bush, taking 700 Billion from working families and giving it to the needy. Damn socialists ruling America and forcing their socialism upon society.

That's why we must stop Obama. He'll take seven hundred AND ONE billion from you. Damn you, socialists!!!

Once everyone in Bethlehem was named Jebus there was no more need for schoolin' as you can plainly see from the video.

coco ebert: I don't think so. I've been reading him for a while and while he's a conservative he writes about a wide variety of issues and isn't usually a hardcore partisan.

No, he's a hardcore partisan, but he knew how to write it in "moderate speak."

He's the douchebag that empowered and encouraged the Conservatives over the past years to act the way they are acting and now he's scared?

RobsterCraw: Socialism is a good case because if Marx's assumptions about human behavior had been correct, he may have devised the prototypical perfect society. However, he was not, and his perversion of history to support his assumptions is evidence of that.

I think anyone with half a brain these days can tell that most of Marxist ideology was demonstrably false. Everyone who's harping on about left-wing socialism in the US surely can't be equating western social programs with marxism. Nobody who advocates socialism today would say it has anything to do with marxism. It just means you support taking the responsibility for industries which the free market tends to cock up from private interests and placing them in the hands of public bodies. No labour theory about it, no dominating revolutionary ideology. Just efficiency and fairness.

As an academic/soon-to-be intellectual (I guess): my work/research...

... does not make me question the existence of God. It does point out the failure of organized theocracies.

... does not diminish my love for the USA. It does enable me to see the idiocy of self-serving patriotism.

... does not make me anti-military. It does certainly demonstrate to me the lunacy of Iraq and fighting a war on two (or more) fronts.

... does not behold me to one economic ideology. It shows me we could fashion a new free market economy and become an example for others to follow, again.

... does not endear me to Osama bin Laden, John Walker Lindh, or Iran's Pathetic Little Tyrant but it sure shows me that men like Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Fred Phelps, and Jeremiah Wright are equally full of shiat.

... does not automatically make me a Democrat or an Obamacan but it damned sure means I will not support either John McCain or Sarah Palin.

Muta:

Good article. Thanks.

I think Republicans are doing fine alienating intellectuals by ignoring reality and coming up with some of the stupidest possible "solutions" to problems. Of course, after about eight years of full Dem rule over both houses and the presidency, I bet we'll see people wondering why we would ever elected Democrats, leading to people electing Republicans for a "change," which then causes people to wonder why they ever elected those idiots in the first place, leading to people electing Democrats for a "change," and...

Brooks must have been thinking about his op-ed piece when he gave this speech...

David Brooks and Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic Luncheon (new window)
David Brooks and Jeffrey Goldberg, Atlantic Luncheon II (new window)

There are some good one-liners there.

bwesb: As an academic/soon-to-be intellectual (I guess): my work/research...

... does not make me question the existence of God. It does point out the failure of organized theocracies.

... does not diminish my love for the USA. It does enable me to see the idiocy of self-serving patriotism.

... does not make me anti-military. It does certainly demonstrate to me the lunacy of Iraq and fighting a war on two (or more) fronts.

... does not behold me to one economic ideology. It shows me we could fashion a new free market economy and become an example for others to follow, again.

... does not endear me to Osama bin Laden, John Walker Lindh, or Iran's Pathetic Little Tyrant but it sure shows me that men like Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Fred Phelps, and Jeremiah Wright are equally full of shiat.

... does not automatically make me a Democrat or an Obamacan but it damned sure means I will not support either John McCain or Sarah Palin.

THIS
I agree completely. I'm curious though, what field of study? I'm in the hard sciences, and I've come to most of these conclusions as a consequence of reading I do while procrastinating...

sloppy shoes: RobsterCraw: *snip*
*snip*

This is discussing politics on Fark, dammit!


/hotlinked because I'm getting ready to leave the house for the day

Capitalist1: The joke's on them. There are no intellectuals among the liberals.


O'Rly?
^{(^)}

Jeremy Bates: If only someone had written some kind of book about this rampant anti-intellectualism.

If only someone had been more specific about which segment of american politics is against science? (new window)

It had to be done.