What could possibly go worse for Mitt Romney?

When I joined the staff of National Review as a lowly associate in 1984, the magazine, and the conservative movement itself, was a fusion of two different mentalities.

On the one side, there were the economic conservatives. These were people that anybody following contemporary Republican politics would be familiar with. They spent a lot of time worrying about the way government intrudes upon economic liberty. They upheld freedom as their highest political value. They admired risk-takers. They worried that excessive government would create a sclerotic nation with a dependent populace.

But there was another sort of conservative, who would be less familiar now. This was the traditional conservative, intellectual heir to Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Clinton Rossiter and Catholic social teaching. This sort of conservative didn’t see society as a battleground between government and the private sector. Instead, the traditionalist wanted to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.

...

The two conservative tendencies lived in tension. But together they embodied a truth that was put into words by the child psychologist John Bowlby, that life is best organized as a series of daring ventures from a secure base.

The economic conservatives were in charge of the daring ventures that produced economic growth. The traditionalists were in charge of establishing the secure base — a society in which families are intact, self-discipline is the rule, children are secure and government provides a subtle hand.

Ronald Reagan embodied both sides of this fusion, and George W. Bush tried to recreate it with his compassionate conservatism. But that effort was doomed because in the ensuing years, conservatism changed.

...

It’s not so much that today’s Republican politicians reject traditional, one-nation conservatism. They don’t even know it exists. There are few people on the conservative side who’d be willing to raise taxes on the affluent to fund mobility programs for the working class. There are very few willing to use government to actively intervene in chaotic neighborhoods, even when 40 percent of American kids are born out of wedlock. There are very few Republicans who protest against a House Republican budget proposal that cuts domestic discretionary spending to absurdly low levels.

The results have been unfortunate. Since they no longer speak in the language of social order, Republicans have very little to offer the less educated half of this country.

The results have been unfortunate. Since they no longer speak in the language of social order, Republicans have very little to offer the less educated half of this country.

What a ******* arrogant statement!

David Brooks wrote:

The results have been unfortunate. Since they no longer speak in the language of social order, Republicans have very little to offer the less educated half of this country.

What a ******* arrogant statement!

David Brooks wrote:

The results have been unfortunate. Since they no longer speak in the language of social order, Republicans have very little to offer the less educated half of this country.

What a ******* arrogant statement!

Republicans have very little to offer the less educated half of this country.

I think the offending statement is,

Quote:

Republicans have very little to offer the less educated half of this country.

Methinks the Repubilcan Party is a party in conflict with itself.

JPB wrote:

Methinks the Repubilcan Party is a party in conflict with itself.

I've been posting about the split between the conservatives and Republicans for about 6 years now. The language difference between the two groups is striking. I don't think Brooks* has done anything other than point that out.



* my perception of Brooks is that he is a conservative, rather than a Republican

We'll have to disagree on that.