The Smartness & Coolness Factors
There is a major pissing match between the populist Palin-lovers and a few conservative "intellectual" Palin-haters. One, Columnist Kathleen Parker has gone off the deep end over it - see Jonah Goldberg on it here. Apparently, after getting so much flak for her Palin criticism, she's decided to dig the whole deeper and go 'drama queen' over "It's a God problem." Actually, no, it isn't, and it is sufficient evidence to point out that social convervative issues, like Prop 8, ran well AHEAD of the Republican ticket; or that we did not in fact nominate a man known for being in the 'armband religion' contingent.
David Frum, has a more measured furrowed brow, with the point:
David Frum, has a more measured furrowed brow, with the point:
I am really and truly frightened by the collapse of support for the Republican Party by the young and the educated … The answers to the Republican dilemma are not obvious and we need a vibrant discussion. I think a little more distance can help everybody do a better job of keeping their temper.
I am frightened too, and the young and the educated (and those who are both) are critical part of why the Republican party went backwards in Travis lately. But just so people don't gnash their teeth too much, let me give away the plot. The problems are identifiable and can be boiled down to three factors - Smartness, competence, and hipness.
I earlier spoke of how we should elect politicians based on 3 factors - character, competence, and vision. The Republican party lost and is running well behind the approval levels of their own ideology because they have been blasted on a number of non-ideological factors. Lesser voters don't use 'character', but a fuzzier view of a person - affiliation, likeability, etc. For the youth, the affiliation factor can simply be expressed as "coolness" - how cool was it to be an Obama supporter versus being a McCain supporter? The question answers itself. From cool branding, to Facebook entries to age differences, to how they presented themselves - Obama was youth-targettign and McCain was ... not. And since the youth had no love for the Iraq war, the appeal of a pro-war (to them) warrior 50 years their senior was no appeal. The media has blasted and pegged the GOP as out-of-touch, not very competent, old fuddy-duddys; oh, and that sidekick was a stupid moose-hunting bimbo. Never mind the realy here, this was the image. They annointed Obama as the opposite on all counts.
The smartness issue is related to competence, and goes back to Bush and how the left and the media has attacked him and the Republican party. To a "Daily Show" view under 30, the GOP is the party of gap-toothed creationist hick hillbillies and a President who cannot seem to tie his own shoelaces (never mind the Harvard MBA).
As a result, the GOP is behind in terms of how people view them in three critical areas:
I earlier spoke of how we should elect politicians based on 3 factors - character, competence, and vision. The Republican party lost and is running well behind the approval levels of their own ideology because they have been blasted on a number of non-ideological factors. Lesser voters don't use 'character', but a fuzzier view of a person - affiliation, likeability, etc. For the youth, the affiliation factor can simply be expressed as "coolness" - how cool was it to be an Obama supporter versus being a McCain supporter? The question answers itself. From cool branding, to Facebook entries to age differences, to how they presented themselves - Obama was youth-targettign and McCain was ... not. And since the youth had no love for the Iraq war, the appeal of a pro-war (to them) warrior 50 years their senior was no appeal. The media has blasted and pegged the GOP as out-of-touch, not very competent, old fuddy-duddys; oh, and that sidekick was a stupid moose-hunting bimbo. Never mind the realy here, this was the image. They annointed Obama as the opposite on all counts.
The smartness issue is related to competence, and goes back to Bush and how the left and the media has attacked him and the Republican party. To a "Daily Show" view under 30, the GOP is the party of gap-toothed creationist hick hillbillies and a President who cannot seem to tie his own shoelaces (never mind the Harvard MBA).
As a result, the GOP is behind in terms of how people view them in three critical areas:
- Competence
- Smartness
- Hipness
I mentioned the competence issue in a previous post, "Moderates want competence, not mush." We lost some of the 'moderate' voters - who are in fact non-ideological and less-informed-on-ideology voters - over these important non-ideological factors.
Does the 'smartness' issue make the Palin-bashers right? No.
The Palin-bashers claim the banner of intellectualism, when in fact the ‘intellectual’ is merely a goods seller in the ‘marketplace of ideas’, so we must consider whether their ideas are shoddy or valid. The best intellectual on the right today - Thomas Sowell - is great because he expresses ideas clearly while shunning the trappings of sophistication, which is a path to sophism and pseudo-intellectualism. But rejecting the world of ideas itself is beyond stupid for conservatives.
We live or DIE by our ideas - we don't have fake celebrity media bias on our side - ALL WE HAVE IS THE STRENGTH OF OUR IDEAS. Well, here's a thought: In 4 debates, there was only one person in one debate who mentioned the conservative idea of personal responsibility - Gov Sarah Palin. It doesn't make her a towering intellectual, but it does recall that our leaders need to express ideas - and she managed to do that with a bit more consistency than the other guy on the ticket, adept though he was in his own way.
When some intellectuals and elitists (urban east-coast latte-sippers) reacted poorly to the Palin pick, this was not about intellectualism at all, but a cultural division. Now, open-minded people should recognize that Palin is a gifted, capable and honorable public servant. She will never be all things to all people (we shall leave that for Obama), but let's not make her a scapegoat. She is a lightning rod for the concern that we lost some electoral segments - segments that were lost for far different reasons.We truly do have an image problem with respect to 'smartness'. One solution is a revamping of the intellectual side of the conservative movement and a revistitation of how the conservative intellectuals engage with the grassroots and with the wide community. The worst thing we could do now is shut ourselves off from new ideas that help us get back in the game politically.
Obviously, one cure for getting back the GOP brand when in comes to "Smartness" would be to recruit and RUN SMART PEOPLE. People who can articulate conservatism without blundering, who have a consistent core, and who can execute effectively. I can understand Parker's "Palin Derangement Syndrome". There was a guy who oozed competence and smartness, and got beat by McCain. Romney, Parker's pick.
Does the 'smartness' issue make the Palin-bashers right? No.
The Palin-bashers claim the banner of intellectualism, when in fact the ‘intellectual’ is merely a goods seller in the ‘marketplace of ideas’, so we must consider whether their ideas are shoddy or valid. The best intellectual on the right today - Thomas Sowell - is great because he expresses ideas clearly while shunning the trappings of sophistication, which is a path to sophism and pseudo-intellectualism. But rejecting the world of ideas itself is beyond stupid for conservatives.
We live or DIE by our ideas - we don't have fake celebrity media bias on our side - ALL WE HAVE IS THE STRENGTH OF OUR IDEAS. Well, here's a thought: In 4 debates, there was only one person in one debate who mentioned the conservative idea of personal responsibility - Gov Sarah Palin. It doesn't make her a towering intellectual, but it does recall that our leaders need to express ideas - and she managed to do that with a bit more consistency than the other guy on the ticket, adept though he was in his own way.
When some intellectuals and elitists (urban east-coast latte-sippers) reacted poorly to the Palin pick, this was not about intellectualism at all, but a cultural division. Now, open-minded people should recognize that Palin is a gifted, capable and honorable public servant. She will never be all things to all people (we shall leave that for Obama), but let's not make her a scapegoat. She is a lightning rod for the concern that we lost some electoral segments - segments that were lost for far different reasons.We truly do have an image problem with respect to 'smartness'. One solution is a revamping of the intellectual side of the conservative movement and a revistitation of how the conservative intellectuals engage with the grassroots and with the wide community. The worst thing we could do now is shut ourselves off from new ideas that help us get back in the game politically.
Obviously, one cure for getting back the GOP brand when in comes to "Smartness" would be to recruit and RUN SMART PEOPLE. People who can articulate conservatism without blundering, who have a consistent core, and who can execute effectively. I can understand Parker's "Palin Derangement Syndrome". There was a guy who oozed competence and smartness, and got beat by McCain. Romney, Parker's pick.
Well, whoever we pick in 2012 - Romney, Jindhal, Palin - let's vet them on the SMARTNESS FACTOR. ... and the coolness factor too.
UPDATE:
Who's the anti-intellectual? A reminder of the left's attack on intellectual integrity.
Posts
3 comments:
Some of our greatest Republican leaders in the post-Reagan years were academics who knew how to market the conservative philosophy. Congressman Dick Armey and Congressman Newt Gingrich are two that come to mind first.
Both of these men were professors and know how to shape their ideas in a way that rallies the base, stays true to the core principles, and in which they can effectively implement their plans.
When these men retired from Congress, the partisan Republicans, many of whom were not philosophically conservative, took over and did everything they could to win majorities at all costs, even if that meant compromising our principles and outspending the Democrats domestically.
Sound philosophical viewpoints which can be executed for the benefit of the country make for good candidates and effective leadership.
It's a mistake for Parker, Frum, and their ilk to so casually dismiss Palin's popularity in the "fly-over" states. Several of us voted for her and accepted the fact that John McCain was along for ther ride - not the other way around.
Sarah Palin herself is not the answer to our problems, but what she stood for very well could be. It's a matter of being plain-spoken, a matter of being conservative and not hiding it or attempting to inveigle the base (McCain was very guilty of this last bit - he was flatly against many conservative tenets and at the last minute tried to pretend he wasn't. Republicans, and really just the American people, knew better). It's a matter of being unabashedly dedicated to our principles. Sarah Palin was the pro-life movement's dream candidate, and the pro-choice feminist movement's worst nightmare!
That unabashed dedication to principles must be an economic, fiscal one as well. Taking as our models Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Phil Gramm, Talmadge Heflin and new stars like Ken Paxton, Bobby Jindal and yes, Sarah Palin, our party could gain the kind of momentum we had in 1994 and run with it, stick with it.
Excellent analysis. Good point about how younger voters are more concerned with "hipness" than with character. Also a very disturbing commentary on the state of our country.
Post a Comment