Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
David Brooks re: Repubs, Palin, and class warfare
The Class War Before Palin
Modern conservatism began as a movement of dissident intellectuals. Richard Weaver wrote a book called, ?Ideas Have Consequences.? Russell Kirk placed Edmund Burke in an American context. William F. Buckley famously said he?d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. But he didn?t believe those were the only two options. His entire life was a celebration of urbane values, sophistication and the rigorous and constant application of intellect.
Driven by a need to engage elite opinion, conservatives tried to build an intellectual counterestablishment with think tanks and magazines. They disdained the ideas of the liberal professoriate, but they did not disdain the idea of a cultivated mind.
Ronald Reagan was no intellectual, but he had an earnest faith in ideas and he spent decades working through them. He was rooted in the Midwest, but he also loved Hollywood. And for a time, it seemed the Republican Party would be a broad coalition ? small-town values with coastal reach.
In 1976, in a close election, Gerald Ford won the entire West Coast along with northeastern states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine. In 1984, Reagan won every state but Minnesota.
But over the past few decades, the Republican Party has driven away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts. This expulsion has had many causes. But the big one is this: Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare. Democrats kept nominating coastal pointy-heads like Michael Dukakis so Republicans attacked coastal pointy-heads.
Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.
What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.
Republicans developed their own leadership style. If Democratic leaders prized deliberation and self-examination, then Republicans would govern from the gut.
George W. Bush restrained some of the populist excesses of his party ? the anti-immigration fervor, the isolationism ? but stylistically he fit right in. As Fred Barnes wrote in his book, ?Rebel-in-Chief,? Bush ?reflects the political views and cultural tastes of the vast majority of Americans who don?t live along the East or West Coast. He?s not a sophisticate and doesn?t spend his discretionary time with sophisticates. As First Lady Laura Bush once said, she and the president didn?t come to Washington to make new friends. And they haven?t.?
The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions ? Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.
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.
Conservatives are as rare in elite universities and the mainstream media as they were 30 years ago. The smartest young Americans are now educated in an overwhelmingly liberal environment.
This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clich?s took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking ?eastern elites.? (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.
Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the ?normal Joe Sixpack American? and the coastal elite.
She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all ? men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.
And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission ? because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission ? by telling members of that class to go away.
Re: David Brooks re: Repubs, Palin, and class warfare
Apologies if this article has already been discussed, as it was published on the 9th.
Brooks hits upon one of the key reasons I find myself disaffected by my own party: the constant, illogical drumbeat against educated individuals ("elites" is the code word). Growing up, for me the Republican party was the party of the well-educated; we simply weren't the college professors.
This idea has been eroding, but the nomination of Palin, a woman whom I consider to be smart but not knowledgable, basically sealed the shift. Education and knowledge are no longer valued; instead, it's all about the east coast, overeducated, liberal snobs vs. the mid-western, beer-drinking, 10th grade drop-outs. The shift to populism really bothers me, and coming from a Republican family that places a very high value on education, I find the change confounding.
IMO, any society that promotes the idea that education is somehow a bad thing is going to suffer myriad dire economic consequences in the long-run.
Here is a thread on it:
http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/3984051.aspx
I have to laugh at this because that was my impression as well. As a child, I always imagined that glamourous cocktail parties were filled with Republicans discussing important financial issues and comparing notes on running their businesses, while Democrats were off in the woods somewhere, with their unshaven faces, armpits and legs and uncut hair, smoking dope and pondering on the true meaning of the lyrics of the latest top ten hit.
My father is a diehard Democrat, the odd man out in my family. And yes, he was a college professor. Ha! But then he became a successful entrepreneur, and he shaves and showers regularly, so my worldview was pretty much thrown into chaos by the time I was 15. LMAO
oh my gosh, me too! I'll be 36 next month, so I can remember a little bit of Carter's administration and the ass-whooping he got in 1980 from Reagan. My mom was always pretty left-wing but my dad was very Republican (even though he didn't vote.)
As a child, my opinion of Democrats was part Kennedy legacy, and part Carter's economic policies and gas shortages, all wrapped up in a burning bra. To be honest, I always associated Republicans with my stubborn dad and trickle down economics. I can't say I ever saw that party as the glamorous, educated elite, but I sure did think the Democratic party was the party of hippie long-hairs that wanted to take your money and give it to the welfare moms.
But back to the OP, it truly frightens me, this disdain of intellectualism and education. Why is it considered "elitist" to want truly smart leaders? I'm not qualified to be president or VP, why would I want someone "just like me?"
I kind of think this is a red herring that the Dems like to throw out. I mean, it's not like we're not educating more people in America than ever, and its not like major and well-respected state and private universities in the center of the country are damning intellectualism. As I was reading it, I thought to myself, "Spoken like a true coaster elite". Except, of course, for his criticism of Giuliani and Romney, which are dead on.
I get the sense that people on the coasts don't spend a lot of time traveling the US and getting to know that they actually have quite a bit in common with people of landlocked states; they just have different perspectives. And maybe those perspectives have changed over the past 15 years as people in those areas become more educated. For all of the talk about the intellectualism and sophistication, it seems incongruous that they can't appreciate that life can be different without being labeled "non-intellectuals." The lack of respect of different perspectives speaks volumes about the fact that they get labeled "elite" IMO.
As a Republican, I see no red herring here at all. More conservative Republicans push an 'us versus them' populism, deride those who are educated, and reinforce their point by putting someone like Palin on their ticket. McCain jokes about graduating at the bottom of his class, Guiliani spits on his own constituents, and Romney spits on his own pedigree. There is an entire segment of the electorate that truly believes the educated are the enemy.
Everyone believes that the opposing viewpoint is condescending. When I was growing up, it was the snobby Republicans who were supposedly condescending to the ragtag Democrats. Respect is a two-way street. Liberals have no business looking down their noses at different points of view simply because they disagree. No one view in intrinsically better than another, no matter how much anyone 'really, really, really' believes in it.
Likewise, however, if conservative Republicans want their "different perspectives" to be respected by "pointy-headed liberals," they need to stop creating a wedge issue out of being educated because, frankly, it's madness. Being well-educated is anything but a detriment in today's economy and society.
But aside from your examples, which are extremely recent, do we have any other evidence? Or was this only brought out to rally against Obama? Because I'm still not seeing it. Not locally, and not in any of the Republican literature I read. Perhaps its my location and choice of reading material, but can you show me perhaps a house race where the Republican derides the Dem for being "too smart?" Because I'm having trouble finding other examples besides the presidential election.
It was definitely brought out to rally against John Kerry and it was an undercurrent in the wonky Gore versus folksy Bush of 2000, but I guess that doesn't completely answer your question. I haven't paid attention to enough Rep and Senator races so I can't give examples there.
But, I've seen it on this board, or on E08 anyway. Some idiot posted some ridiculous Obama email forward deriding his time at Harvard as Marxist training camp, and several Republicans on that board over there agreed. I've seen others on E08 flat out say they would never attend an Ivy university because they are just filled with stupid liberal sheeple. I have no doubt that many universities could be more tolerant of conservative view points, but these comments just strike me as, to use Obama's word, bitter. If you don't want your kids to go to the Ivy League because you think everyone there is stupid, you are screwing them over. I know E08 is hardly representative of the republican party everywhere, but it certainly indicates that this education bashing does impact some people.
No one derides a politician for being "too smart." S/he is derided as a "liberal elite." Bashing elites is usually the purview of populists, but as populism has seeped into the Republican party, so has the elite-bashing.
At the latest, Republican elite-bashing/populism began with Nixon, who is well-known for disliking Kennedy and anyone else with an "elite" education. He stoked the populist fires and regularly railed against liberal elites.
Pat Buchanan also regularly bashed liberal elites. His 1996 run for the Republican nomination was built upon talk of peasants and pitchforks (his nickname was "Pitchfork Pat"). He did surprisingly well because his message of "us versus them" resonated with many conservative Republicans. He worked under Nixon, so you can understand where he might have developed his approach.
More recently, it's been a big issue with the Republicans in 2000 and 2004. Bush was the Everyman that you wanted to have a beer with while Gore was a boring intellectual who would lecture you into a nice nap. Ditto with Kerry, who was ridiculed endlessly for his East Coast education and status. The flip-flop windsurfing ad and the attempts to link him with the French are just two examples of this.
Talk about serendipitous timing. This commentary just appeared on CNN today. It's slanted, but does a decent job of tracing the history of anti-intellectualism among Republicans, starting with Nixon.
By Julian E. Zelizer
Special to CNN
PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- There is a big question that hangs over this presidential campaign: Will a majority of voters give their support to the presidential candidate who is the intellectual in the contest?
Barack Obama has all the credentials of the famous "pointy-headed" intellectuals in the Democratic Party who have traditionally gone down to defeat.
He has degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, he taught at the University of Chicago, and, yes, he even wrote his own books. In speeches and debates, he has bombarded voters with detailed arguments about public policy. When his character is attacked, his instinct is to respond with facts and figures.
It is extremely surprising that Obama has this done this well given his intellectual persona. Anti-intellectualism, as the historian Richard Hofstadter noted, has been a tradition in American history.
Since World War II, Republicans have been very successful at making Democrats who appear too intellectual the subject of derision, symbols of how liberals are out of touch with average Americans and lack the passion needed for leadership.
In the 1952 presidential election, Dwight Eisenhower's running mate, Richard Nixon, unleashed a vicious attack on Democrat Adlai Stevenson, who had received degrees from Princeton and Northwestern Law School, for being an "egghead" too closely associated with the university class rather than the working class.
Nixon linked softness on Communism with intellectualism, saying that "Adlai the Appeaser . . . got a Ph.D. from Dean Acheson's College of Cowardly Communist Containment."
The anti-intellectual argument continued to be a powerful tool for conservatives. In 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan mocked Jimmy Carter as a president who could not lead in part because he became so bogged down by the details and facts that he could not see his way out of economic and foreign crises.
In their famous 1980 debate, Reagan responded to Carter's scholarly recitation of the problems in the health care system and of Reagan's opposition to Medicare, by smiling, laughing, and just saying, "There you go again."
Vice President George H.W. Bush used this line of attack against Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988. Dukakis was extremely intelligent and comfortable with the complicated policy issues. He also was advised by some of the brightest minds in the academic world.
Dukakis stressed that he would offer competence in the White House. But Bush campaign strategist Lee Atwater tore this image apart, turning Dukakis's strength into a weakness by presenting him as an elitist Cambridge liberal who could not relate to most Americans.
Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election was the last Democrat to fall victim to the anti-intellectual attack. Gore had an impressive r?sum? in dealing with the environment, communications technology, and foreign policy.
In speeches and debates, he displayed a much stronger command over the issues than his opponent, George W. Bush. Yet Republicans did it again. Seeking to undermine the Democrats' criticism that Bush was an unintelligent, privileged frat-boy, the GOP depicted the Harvard-educated Gore as arrogant and cold, well-versed with the facts but not somebody you would like to have a beer with.
Voters hearing Bush's Texas accent might not have known that he was a Yalie (with an MBA from Harvard Business School) and the scion of a Connecticut-based political dynasty.
The Republicans received support from the media. One reporter in the press pool covering Gore complained that they got "the government nerd." Saturday Night Live broadcast a devastating portrayal of Gore as an arrogant know-it-all, mocking his constant sighs as Bush spoke in the first debate.
Obama looks and sounds more like an intellectual than any of the aforementioned candidates, yet he is moving up in the polls. To be sure, his campaign has played hardball in recent weeks with mockumentaries about the Keating Five and more. Overall, however, as he demonstrated in last week's debate, facts and analysis have been his weapons of choice.
What's changed to possibly blunt the anti-intellectual campaign attack? The first factor is that Obama owes a debt of gratitude to Bill Clinton, who was a policy wonk in a politician's clothing. During the 1990s, the saxophone-playing Clinton figured out a way to make competence cool.
He had a phenomenal grasp of the intricacies of public policy, yet he presented himself in such a way -- through his folksy language and dynamic speaking ability -- that voters felt as if he was not talking down to them, but to them.
Unlike Al Gore or John Kerry, Obama has been able to replicate this approach. Obama has wrapped his intellectual strength in a powerful speaking style as well and a persona that to many is cool.
The second, and more important, factor is President Bush. For many Americans, including a number of Republicans, Bush has lived up to the worst fears in 2000 about his intelligence, as well as competence. He has not managed to handle the policy challenges that confronted him and in many cases, such as his address to the nation on the financial crisis, seems unable to master the key facts.
And finally there is the financial crisis. Historians might look back to the candidates' performance in the week the financial crisis broke as a real turning point.
Polls registered a dramatic slide in McCain's support that followed Obama's appearance of deliberation and thoughtfulness over the crisis. His determination to analyze the situation carefully and seek informed advice seems to have worked better than McCain's emphasis on drama and off-the-cuff statements.
It is certainly too early to know whether an attack on intellectual elitism might work for the GOP in the final weeks of the campaign. Gov. Sarah Palin hinted at this line of attack when she said of Obama, "listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform -- not even in the State Senate."
In her interview with Katie Couric, Palin said, "I'm not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world."
Thus far, Obama seems to be joining Bill Clinton in turning a page, showing that ideas and analysis can be assets on the campaign trail.