Conservative Against Palin (David Brooks)

[Tesibria]

Context for Journal Entries: I'm in the process of compiling all the columns/articles written by "conservatives" against McCain and/or Palin. Yes, I know that many are frequently posted in the Editorials or Other Articles. However, they're always mixed in with the many articles on other topics and I, personally want a "set" all in one place, for easy reference when discussing issues with conservatives. So, I'm posting them in my journal.

Why Experience Matters
By: David Brooks, New York Times, Sept. 15, 2008

....The narrow question is this: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be vice president? ...
***
The issue starts with an evaluation of Palin, but does not end there. This argument also is over what qualities the country needs in a leader and what are the ultimate sources of wisdom.

There was a time when conservatives did not argue about this. Conservatism was once a frankly elitist movement. Conservatives stood against radical egalitarianism and the destruction of rigorous standards. They stood up for classical education, hard-earned knowledge, experience and prudence. Wisdom was acquired through immersion in the best that has been thought and said.
***
In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation’s founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. ....

I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.
***
How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t.
***
Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.
***

[The Blue Flower]

1. "Radical egalitariansim?"

What is this, the French Revolution?