Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Will Collier trashes the snide and arrogant Mr. Brooks after the latter pens another column sneering at the Great Unwashed, especially its tendency towards anti-intellectualism, defined by Brooks as not showing sufficient respect to The Best and the Brightest the current Administration and its Congressional enablers. Eric Raymond goes one step further than Collier, who is content to slap Brooks around for his snotty attitude, and points out that the reasons the leading intellectualoids of the left have earned the ire of most Americans in less than a year are twofold: the damage done to these people by Gramscian memetic weapons so that they can't clearly see reality, and also that the financial and political problems posed by the current situation are beyond the ability of any centralizing technocrats to handle even if the educated elites could see the problems clearly instead of having their vision obscured by a bunch of politically-correct nonsense.

Jonah Goldberg helpfully emphasizes Brooks' attempt to elide three separate groups: those people educated in the Ivy League, the members of the political class, and the members of the Obama administration. There's certainly overlap between the three groups, but to oppose the political class and the 0bama administration is not necessarily the same as being anti-intellectual or even anti-Ivy League; after all, W went to Yale and the Harvard Business School.

In the end, though, we despise Brooks for thinking we're too dumb to see what kind of shell game he's trying to pull, and for looking down his nose at us when he tells us, "No, that's not the Federal Government pissing on your back, it's just raining!" We may not agree with Brooks about Reinhold Niebuhr, but it doesn't mean we don't know what's going on.


( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 6th, 2010 04:37 am (UTC)
Brooks' point is also that once you're in office, you have to be practical and cater to multiple and contradicting interests. So those interests are to be limited to the interests of the very wealthy, because the masses are stupid anyway and the very wealthy (who designed a curriculum to make the masses stupid, and who call them fringe if they questions the teachings of that curriculum) know what's good for the many.

As a pundit, he has to be practical because writing to advance the savage idiots doesn't make him feel manly.
Jan. 6th, 2010 05:20 pm (UTC)
More to the point, as a columnist for the NYT he dasn't wander too far off the PC reservation.

NB: Normally I roundfile anonymous comments, but this one's interesting.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )