Wednesday, October 08, 2008
for once i agree...
[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.
brooks is lamenting the recession, if not death, of the republican party that i once voted for. without that burkean tradition at the forefront, they are as a party little more than a quasi-fascist front and utterly unfit to govern -- and it is not just palin and bush but john mccain which embody that unfitness, as was made exceptionally clear by his selection of palin. read the ten pages of tim dickinson's piece. here is a man who would rule the country who hasn't intellectual curiosity enough in 26 years in washington to learn the first iota about national economics. here is a man who has run a campaign virtually devoid of ideas but very long on "political bullshit about narratives". who could vote for such a man? who could vote for such a party?
mark for reference those you know who find a way to vote for mccain in spite of everything. they are unthinkers.