Sooo. Disagreeing with people who share your viewpoint is anti-intellectualism?

Good luck with that.

Sometime ago I read in a conservative blog something along the line (paraphrasing here): there will be a split in politics soon, not between liberals and conservatives but between arrogant elites and real Americans; between healthy football jocks and sexy, fertile Sarah Palins and asocial dorks and ‘elitist’ misfits.

Sure, I could laugh this off if I didn’t know that is exactly how a lot of folks on ‘my side’ feel. I always want to remind people that there is absolutely nothing wrong or ‘elitist’ about being an intellectual. Some people might also not like the economic reality that America is to a large part wealthy because of the East and West Coast and places like Chicago and Detroit in between. Sure, they are the democratic strongholds but as conservatives we should never write those places of or dismiss them. They are our creative engine and not Amarillo/TX(sorry guys, nothing personal).
I’m rambling, probably because I’m happy I can give my 2 cents again, thanks Rick

There are aspects of both ideologies that I like, so I don’t vote by party, but I’m probably more left than right.

I’ve always enjoyed the opinions of those like Will and Brooks, primarily because they discuss ideology in a logical way. I don’t necessarily agree with their conclusions, but at least I can understand them.

This election cycle I visited many right-wing blogs to get some discussion going. Many wouldn’t let me even post because I was questioning something about McCain. Of those who let me post, responses to my message was simply to dismiss what I stated.

It concerns me that the anti-intellectual bias seems to be rising and that the only things worth expressing are filled with vehemence against “the other side”. That anyone who lives in a urban environment, is educated and has a religious belief that is not that of a christian fundamentalist is a liberal anti-American.

So it was good to read something thoughtful, but I don’t agree with this:

“Obama is an elitist because he has demonstrated a belief that he is in a special class of Americans and that he shares this high status with the monied, the powerful, and other liberals who actually believe that the rest of us are sheep…”

How does Obama manifest this perception in you?

Do you know what exactly is his stance on Iraq if say for example the SoFA does not get finalized by this year end? Do you know that he is not going to stray away from his 16 month withdrawal timeline no matter what the conditions on the ground are?

I did not see Peggy Noonan, David Brooks or just about any of those who jumped ship ask these questions about Obama? All that i have heard is how greatly intellectual he is and that he knows Neihbur !

If Noonan wants to scrutinize policy positions of candidates running for office let her do so. But this is a two way street - she did not exactly do this exercise with Obama, did she ? Have we ever read a column from her where she tries to study Obama’s position on the major issues of the day and whether she agrees with them or not ?

Correct me if i am wrong, but I Have’nt.Noonan would have some ground to stand on if she gave a little more scrutiny to Obama’s positions in the last one year than what she has given to Palin in the last 8 weeks.

We shut these people out at our own peril. The founding fathers tenaciously embraced the principles of individual freedom and limited government. A few of these men were common folk. Many of them were not. All of them had a deep curiosity of political science, history and the role of government. They read Cato. They read philosophy. They exchanged ideas vigorously in an attempt to learn from others, advance their ideas and create a better system of government.

The intent to throw these people out of our movement is emotion over logical thinking. It is a function of an age where every crackpot comment is exposed on the internet, where it is easy to convince the masses that “they” intend not only to defeat us politically, but destroy our very way of life.

That being said, there is legitimate concern that an Obama presidency holds potentially disastrous consequences, the likes of which this country has not seen for almost 40 years. This is not because of Obama. This is because with Obama, Pelosi and Reid running the show we see the possibility of real, dramatic and catastrophic changes in our future.

Think card check, capital gains tax increases, corporate tax increases, social security tax increases, massive cuts in intelligence and defense spending, cap and trade, a radical 6-3 (or worse) majority in the Supreme Court, the fairness doctrine and a policy of appeasement. It does not take an active imagination to see that the intellectual notion of limited government for the benefit of individual people and families dying a quick and painful death.

Many friends tell me not to worry, that there is no way Obama will purse all of these radical proposals once the campaigning is over. Perhaps, but with Pelosi and Reid running the hill who is going to stop him? It’s a gamble that should make even intellectual conservatives very nervous.