More Conservative Elitism

Yes, I know. Many of you do not think that conservatives have some elitists in the ranks. But, on elitism, it is where many conservatives are more comfortable with liberal elites and in the end they end up agreeing with each other more than disagree.
Today in The New York Times, conservative elitist David Brooks, not a fan of Republican presidential nominee Sen. John "F--- You" McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, brought up a canard about experience.
First off on where I think that Mr. Brooks is confused is on the assertion that conservatism is not about egalitarianism. As Mr. Brooks explains:

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.

Yes, I do agree that at one time, conservatism was an elitist movement. And it languished because it was very elite. But, where Mr. Brooks is way off is when he writes that somehow, because Gov. Palin is Sen. "F--- You" McCain's running mate that she does not stand up to rigorous standards. As defined by whom? Yourself? And who says that someone like Gov. Palin does not believe in classical education, has developed a hard-earned knowledge, experience and prudence? Oh, I forgot. Poor Gov. Palin got her degree in journalism from the University of Idaho. A puny state-school. And what says that living like does not provide hard-earned knowledge? Of course it does. Sometimes more so than the Ivory Tower that people like Mr. Brooks occupy. What conservative ideas do lead to is an understanding of meritocracy, meaning that people move up, whether in education, business and all walks of life. What conservatism has done, especially in the United States is produced the greatest republic in the history of man.
And, Mr. Brooks addresses that as well:

But, especially in America, there has always been a separate, populist, strain. For those in this school, book knowledge is suspect but practical knowledge is respected. The city is corrupting and the universities are kindergartens for overeducated fools.
The elitists favor sophistication, but the common-sense folk favor simplicity. The elitists favor deliberation, but the populists favor instinct.
This populist tendency produced the term-limits movement based on the belief that time in government destroys character but contact with grass-roots America gives one grounding in real life. And now it has produced Sarah Palin.

Mr. Brooks paints a rather black and white picture. And a wrong one.
I think that book knowledge is vital. But, it can not replaced practical knowledge. When it does, then one becomes elite and thinking that they have all the answers. The key is to not let one over take the other. As far as the universities, well yes they are corrupting. Look at the reality for a conservative student. They are mocked and ridiculed. They are made to feel that their thoughts, ideas and opinions are stupid. The educated ones, the professors and administrators, will bring that misguided one to the light. The university is elitism at its utter worst. And one can be both sophisticated and instinctive. I believe that Ronald Reagan was in that category. But, he did not let sophistication get in the way of the instinctive. Mr. Reagan believed that the Soviet Union and communism were evil. And we know that they were. He wanted to end both. He had to use a lot of sophisticated ideas but always kept the eye on the ball that the Soviet, communist empire had to be defeated. One of his predecessors, Richard Nixon and his experienced elites came up with detente. It accepted the very existence of the Soviet Union and allowed them to have a sphere of influence unchecked. Never mind that more nations around the world fell victim to the Soviets. And that accelerated under Jimmy Carter.
The reason that the term limits movement gained was because the government no longer had the consent of the governed. A rightful brake had to be put on those that saw government as a career and not something that one did part of the time. One thing about many states is that their legislatures are part-time and the elected assemblyman, representative or senator can continue at their professions. Californian is the complete opposite and look at how well we function here.
It just is so out there when a "conservative" like Mr. Brooks tries to justify elitism.
Note that he refers to conservatives as "they" as if he wants nothing to do with conservatism.
And maybe he does not.
But, I will note this.
Sen. McCain is a graduate of Annapolis, the navy academy. Gov. Palin as noted is a graduate of the University of Idaho. Neither are lawyers.
Sen. Messiah Barack Obama is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Sen. Blowhard Joe Biden is a graduate of Syracuse University. And, surprise, both are lawyers.
Which candidates will voters, the ultimate deciders, think have the ability to govern. Two lawyers or a member of the armed services and a state university graduate who has had multiple careers? We will see in November.