Defining Cultural Conservatism Down

Wow. David Brooks really likes John Edwards. So much so that I feel compelled to attack Brooks from the right. He says that "If you had to put a label on Edwards, you’d say that he is a culturally conservative anti-Washington liberal" and he means it in a good way. Edwards, says Brooks, is "going to be able to connect with working-class white voters in Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and Michigan" and that a big part of this "is his cultural traditionalism." Of what does this traditionalism consist?

Edwards will be talking about an issue, and his voice will rise and he’ll punctuate his argument with a ringing declaration of stern common sense. On education: “Parents can’t just drop their kids off at school and forget about it. Parents have to take responsibility for their children!” On immigration: “They have to learn English!”

I dunno about that. My upbringing was about as far from working class Ohio as you can get, and this idea that parents should be interested in kids' education and immigrants should learn English was pretty uncontroversial among secular Jews in Greenwich Village. If this is all it takes to be a cultural conservative, then sign me up. It's all the stuff about sex -- abortion, gays, abstinence, etc. -- that turned me off of cultural conservatism, not the idea that parents should care about their kids.

Meanwhile, I note that while Brooks has never taken such a simplistic view, I do believe the orthodox conservative position is that if public school teachers didn't have unions -- or, better, if we didn't have public schools at all -- that education would be great no matter what parents thought or did. Be that as it may, this is one of the strongest parts of the Case for Edwards: out of his mouth, totally banal phrases strike many people as culturally conservative.

Comments

Chicken soup for the sick!! Floss!! Tie your shoes!! No child left without a car seat!! There, where's my matching funds?

Posted by steve duncan | August 17, 2007 9:49 AM

"this is one of the strongest parts of the Case for Edwards: out of his mouth, totally banal phrases strike many people as culturally conservative."

That's certainly part of it. Edwards is indeed stylistically conservative, which is a nice combination to go with the programmatic progressivism.

Check out this short speech. It's not the kind of speech most viable Democratic general election candidates could conceivably get away with, and it's Edwards stylistic conservatism that is a large part of what enables him to get away with preaching the progressive gospel.

Posted by Petey | August 17, 2007 9:50 AM

Hmm maybe you are on to something here, Matt. This could explain the mystery of why Edwards is not really gaining any traction in the Democratic primaries if likely voters are perceiving him as a conservative.

Posted by Ron | August 17, 2007 9:55 AM

Yeah, that clip is a pretty powerful combination of social democratic philosophy with American populist rhetoric.

Posted by Christmas | August 17, 2007 9:58 AM

Brooks is so obnoxious, as is everyone else who views small town America as this good hardworking place full of downhome folks who just love their family and God, and wish they could stop being oppressed by elites on the coasts. As someone who grew up in small town Ohio, this is a patronizing view.

And anyways, doesn't Hilary Clinton draw more support from working class voters than Edwards?

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 10:01 AM

This could explain the mystery of why Edwards is not really gaining any traction in the Democratic primaries if likely voters are perceiving him as a conservative.

This is kind of loopy. Edwards doesn't sound conservative; he sounds populist. As Yglesias has pointed out before, populism is a style, not an ideology, and has been used by both social conservatives and economic liberals. But Edwards clearly and easily falls into the tradition of economic populists here.

Posted by Christmas | August 17, 2007 10:03 AM

I have long thought that part of the extensive (and well-documented) conservative animus against Edwards is kind of a weird appreciation of conservatives of the power of Edwards' delivery (itself inextricable from his life's story).

He didn't join them, despite his success; so they'd like to beat him.

Posted by Will | August 17, 2007 10:05 AM

And anyways, doesn't Hilary Clinton draw more support from working class voters than Edwards?

And more working class voters broke for Reagan than for Carter or Mondale. So?

Posted by Christmas | August 17, 2007 10:06 AM

out of his mouth, totally banal phrases strike many people as culturally conservative.

At least, they do to people who make a living spouting culturally conservative banalities.

Posted by Glenn | August 17, 2007 10:10 AM

I don't know anybody who see Edwards as a conservative. Many of his stylistic quirks are rooted in his origin in the South, and they might resonate a bit differently from some of the signals you get from other liberals; but, that's not what Brooks is saying. He's just spinning his usual fatuous nonsense, trying to fit the world into a David Brooks shaped mold.

Posted by AemJeff | August 17, 2007 10:14 AM

"And more working class voters broke for Reagan than for Carter or Mondale. So?"

So? I'm simply refuting a piece of his argument...

"Edwards, says Brooks, is "going to be able to connect with working-class white voters in Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and Michigan" and that a big part of this "is his cultural traditionalism."

Doesn't it seem a bit odd then that Hilary Clinton, oh great purveyor of elitist feminist cosmopolitan values, draws more support from working class voters than folksy 'my papa worked in a mill' Edwards? ... odd at least using the reasoning of the great observers of Americana like Brooks (sarcasm).

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 10:15 AM

"This could explain the mystery of why Edwards is not really gaining any traction in the Democratic primaries if likely voters are perceiving him as a conservative."

I think it does explain why low-information Dems haven't flocked to Edwards even while he comfortably wins among high-information Dems.

Low-information Dems are only responding to stylistic cues like the Clinton brand name at this point.

The beauty of having small state primaries first is that it gives an opportunity for the Dems of Iowa to become high-information, and thus gives them an opportunity to convey their judgment to low-information Dems across the nation.

Posted by Petey | August 17, 2007 10:16 AM

this idea that parents should be interested in kids' education and immigrants should learn English was pretty uncontroversial among secular Jews in Greenwich Village. If this is all it takes to be a cultural conservative, then sign me up. It's all the stuff about sex -- abortion, gays, abstinence, etc. -- that turned me off of cultural conservatism, not the idea that parents should care about their kids.

Ummm ... this is part of the appeal of a certain class of Republicans (which includes Giuliani) and why certain people who are otherwise well within the ideological range of a Democratic party defined as "the DLC and further left" nonetheless refuse to identify as Democrats and often do support Republicans.

To them, cultural conservatism isn't abortion, gays, etc ("only those nutso religious people wanna really ban abortion ... and they are no worse than those liberals who lurve abortion ... don't they know, abortion is icky?") but rather their belief in the old verities which they have been convinced (largely by the so-called liberal media) those dirty hippies in the Democratic party wish to undermine: e.g. "those Democrats wanna make us teach our kids Spanish but don't wanna make immigrants teach their kids English ... so I'll vote GOP instead -- they'll never actually follow through with banning abortion anyway as that'll deprive them of that issue"(*).

Part of the reason many of us are excited about Edwards is because of his, as Petey calls it (may I use that term? I love it!), stylistic conservatism. Not only does it get a certain class of Progressives who are also, in some ways, stylistically conservative (if perhaps too elitist to be populists, c.f. Christmas' comments) excited, but it also allows a Democrat to reach out to the id of the Republican party without sacrificing core principles (which sacrifice turns away swing voters ... they want a candidate who has "principles" -- note I am referring to "principles" rather than principles ... there is a big difference -- more than they want a moderate, which is something the SCLM, the DLC and even many Blue Dogs refuse to get).

* if you'll pardon the Godwin's law concerns about me making this comment, isn't "we'll elect them to power out of spite/to balance out the commies/etc. ... and once in power, they'll never enact their radical agenda" the kind of thinking that got the Nazis votes in early 1930s Germany? Ironically, you hear this kind of comment regarding the GOP vs. dirty hippy Democrats (with also references to left-wing anti-Zionism) oftentimes from Jews ... and from the same Jews who obsessively focus on the Holocaust. Paging Dr. Freud ... paging Dr. Freud ...

Posted by DAS | August 17, 2007 10:17 AM

"I'm simply refuting a piece of his argument..."

No, Mike, you're not.

You're confusing the primary election with the general election.

Posted by Petey | August 17, 2007 10:21 AM

It can't be said enough: David Brooks is a disingenuous shill. If he's praising Edwards, it's because his faction of the Republican Party believes they need Edwards as either the nominee to run against or as a semi-viable candidate simply to bleed Obama and HRC.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 17, 2007 10:26 AM

I don't know, maybe I haven't had my second organic fair trade latte (joking) this morning but am I missing something here:

"Edwards, says Brooks, is "going to be able to connect with working-class white voters in Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and Michigan" and that a big part of this "is his cultural traditionalism."

By that measure, shouldn't he be doing better among working class voters than Hilary? Or is Brooks saying that in the general, normally Republican-leaning white working class would break to Edwards?

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 10:30 AM

Actually, part of the success of the GOP recently has been its branding of conservatism. The GOP has become extremely conservative at the same time it's being able to win over a good chunk of very moderate voters.

Is this a paradox? Is the GOP winning over moderates in spite of its conservatism? No. The GOP is winning over moderates because of its conservatism -- by convincing those moderates they are conservative. How? By, as MY puts it "defining cultural conservatism down": being in favor of a few old verities makes one a "conservative" who should know better that to vote for those dirty hippies and effete elitists in the Democratic party and vote for their fellow conservatives instead.

Perhaps it's time for the Democrats to play that game too? Define cultural liberalism down?

P.S. I've long distinguished between cultural and social conservatism: I have a friend, e.g., who is very much a social (and religious) conservative -- anti-abortion, etc. -- he's no cultural conservative, but in terms of culture (the cannon, etc) he can be very liberal. Similarly the "crunchy conservatives" who are dirty hippies but view things in a socially conservative manner. Just as the GOP was able to convince certain classes of cultural conservatives that they are conservatives in general and should vote for the increasingly right-wing GOP, perhaps we Dems. can convince cultural liberals that they are liberals in general and should vote for the Democrats all while, a la Edwards, adopting a position of stylistic conservatism (to use Petey's phrase) to win back erstwhile, down-defined cultural conservatives as well as excite Progressives/Pragmatists (in the sense of James, Dewey, et al ... not the common usage) like me who are generally moonbats but have a certain conservative (in the sense of, well, actually conserving things that are good ... which conservatism the so-called conservatives of the GOP sorely lack) edge to ourselves?

Posted by DAS | August 17, 2007 10:38 AM

"I don't know, maybe I haven't had my second organic fair trade latte (joking) this morning"

Certainly possible that you're just caffeine deprived. But I'd say it's more likely that you aren't too sharp about politics.

As stated, you are confusing the primary and the general election, as well as some other confusions.

Posted by Petey | August 17, 2007 10:38 AM

There is more serious thinking done in the previous 16 comments than Brooks has done in his life. For crying out loud, he's a sociologist!! There were feathers in my grandma's old mattress that have more intellectual weight than anything Brooks has written or thought. "BoBo's in Paradise" anyone?

Posted by John McC | August 17, 2007 10:40 AM

Edwards' biggest constituency (at least in presidential politics) has always been highly educated people who convince themselves that he has mythical powers to appeal to working class voters. Brooks is just the latest member of Edwards' core supporter class.

Wake me up when the working class support itself emerges and carries Edwards in any meaningful way. The baseless predictions of support are old news.

Posted by anon | August 17, 2007 10:41 AM

"Certainly possible that you're just caffeine deprived. But I'd say it's more likely that you aren't too sharp about politics."

Probably a little of both.

But please, in the following sentence, Brooks makes no mention of anything but white, working class voters (no mention of party affiliation or primary/general)... "[Edwards is] going to be able to connect with working-class white voters in Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and Michigan."

And I keep asking the question... if this is so, why does Hilary do better among (ok, Democratic) white working class than Edwards?

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 10:42 AM

It's all about the accent. For Brooks the most important thing is if Edwards would seem at home at a NASCAR race, which of course he does. Pretty thin gruel, but then so is Mr. Bobo.

Posted by Jim M | August 17, 2007 10:44 AM

Political Lexicon (Section 7.23.4):

Culturally conservative = white and southern.

Stylistically conservative = articulates mainstream Democratic positions with a southern accent.

Cultural traditionalism (a) = (see also: white northern stereotypes about white southerners) Commonplaces about good parenting are to be assumed to be coded swipes at black welfare mothers.

Cultural traditionalism (b) = (see also: urban professional stereotypes about working class whites) Commonplaces about the need for immigrants to be able to communicate in the dominant language of their adopted country are to be assumed to be coded xenophobic and chauvinistic swipes at immigrant wetbacks.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 17, 2007 10:45 AM

David Brooks is a disingenuous shill. If he's praising Edwards, it's because his faction of the Republican Party believes they need Edwards as either the nominee to run against or as a semi-viable candidate simply to bleed Obama and HRC. - SomeCallMeTim

The problem with "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" is that you never know exactly how disenginuous your enemy is about communicating who are his friends. Brooks may very well be figuring he's damning Edwards for Dems. by praising him and that might be Brooks' goal. If Brooks is enough of a disineguous shill to praise Edwards in order to help get Edwards nominated, he's disingenuous enough (as well as clever enough) to be praising Edwards so that we Dems. decide "if Brooks likes Edwards, he must be up to something" and then vote Edwards out ... when that may very well be what Brooks and the GOP want us to do.

Posted by DAS | August 17, 2007 10:46 AM

Edwards is stylistically populist. It's just the the only people who have been making a populist case are conservatives and have been since the early 1980's. That makes it sound more conservative than it really is, and for the most part conservatives only stoked class resentments because they knew they had cowed the Democratic party into abandoning 'class warfare'. Instead, Democrats have played right into their hands by ranting about the glories if free trade and privatization while the GOP, who believes more strongly in those things, have campaigned primarily against a decadent east coat/holywood elite who gets more than they deserve. Like it or not, the fake populism of the Republicans is preferred to the 'moderate' Democratic policies favored by this countries elite.

Posted by soullite | August 17, 2007 10:46 AM

"It can't be said enough: David Brooks is a disingenuous shill. If he's praising Edwards, it's because his faction of the Republican Party believes they need Edwards as either the nominee to run against or as a semi-viable candidate simply to bleed Obama and HRC."

Or, Brooks woke up yesterday morning and decided, "I need to write one of those columns that make those morons in the MSM I share cocktails with at Ben and Sally's place think I'm the 'reasonable' wing-nut pundit."

Posted by Andruw | August 17, 2007 10:47 AM

"Wake me up when the working class support itself emerges and carries Edwards in any meaningful way."

Ring, ring. Time to wake up.

Posted by Petey | August 17, 2007 10:50 AM

"Edwards' biggest constituency (at least in presidential politics) has always been highly educated people who convince themselves that he has mythical powers to appeal to working class voters. Brooks is just the latest member of Edwards' core supporter class."

Exactly! It's a patronizing view that if Edwards walks around with his southern drawl and repeatedly and painfully tells us that his dad was a mill worker, then all of the folks in small towns across Middle America will be attracted to him.

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 10:51 AM

Mike, because low income and working class voters don't pay attention until 1 month to 2 weeks prior to any election date. To put it bluntly, they have to work too hard to waste time chatting in forums like this about which candidate they like the most. I would caution strongly against assuming much from leads this far out, no matter how strong they look.

When it comes to contested elections, the Democrats have simply not nominated the person who was leading at this point in the primary in recent memory. I'd imagine the reason I stated above has a lot to do with that. I'm not saying Hillary can't win, or that Edwards will. I'm simply saying that this bizarre notion you have that Hillary is a lock or that her support is solid defies everything that we know about the history of Democratic Primary elections.

Posted by soullite | August 17, 2007 10:52 AM

Fair enough Soullite.

Full disclosure. I've never voted for a winner in any election that matters. Well I got Boxer and Pelosi once but that was easy.

Fuller disclosure: I don't like Edwards. Fuller-er disclosure: I don't support Hilary; I just find that she leads among working class voters funny given all the attention paid to Edwards and this group. Fullest disclosure: I support Obama.

Petey...

"Wake me up when the working class support itself emerges and carries Edwards in any meaningful way."

Ring, ring. Time to wake up."

You are assuming that all voters in Iowa are working class. I'd like to see these numbers broken down.

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 10:57 AM

When it comes to contested elections, the Democrats have simply not nominated the person who was leading at this point in the primary in recent memory.

Don't know if this is right, but it accords with my memory: "Kerry was in first place in the early 2003 polls and ended up winning." The only EZ-Google numbers I could find from about this time related to NH alone, where Kerry was in the lead (though soon to be surpassed by Dean).

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 17, 2007 11:10 AM

"I just find that she leads among working class voters funny"

Ha, ha, ha!

Out of curiosity, Mike, do you find it as funny that Hillary leads in every subgrouping of national Democrats at this point? Do you find it utterly hilarious that she leads Obama among African-Americans? This is what happens when you're at 45% in a multi-candidate race.

Low-information national Dems are currently treating Hillary as an extension of the Clinton brand name. However, she's going to have to stand on her own in the higher-information hothouse of Iowa and New Hampshire.

And by the way, there are two L's in Hillary, you clueless idiot.

Posted by Petey | August 17, 2007 11:11 AM

"And by the way, there are two L's in Hillary, you clueless idiot."

Wow. Now I remember why I quit commenting on blogs in the first place.

I just wanted to defend people from small towns in Ohio from patronizing attacks by the likes of Brooks. I've done my job and now will return to blog commenting obscurity.

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 11:17 AM

If taking an interest in your children and demanding that they perform well in school is a "conservative" stance than the most conservaitve people I know are East Coast urban liberal professionals.

I have seen Edwards speak to working class audiences and he is quite effective (albeit with an occassionally over the top mawkishness that doesn't work that well for me.) What Brooks is writing about is a conservative characature about how liberals act and feel. Par for the course for Mr. McBoBo.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | August 17, 2007 11:17 AM

"albeit with an occassionally over the top mawkishness that doesn't work that well for me."

This is an interesting phenomenon I've thought about before.

That mawkishness you refer to is part of the reason culturally sophisticated liberals have a stylistic problem with Edwards, sometimes seeing him as 'plastic' or 'phony'.

I think it plays well to the audiences Edwards is trying to reach, but it does cause a problem in Edwards' appeal to Democratic culturally elite audiences.

Posted by Petey | August 17, 2007 11:28 AM

Petey,

I think the mawkishness probably stems from being a trial lawyer who made his mark by persuading juries. Edwards was extremely well regarded in trial lawyer circles in NC and his closing arguments were considered remarkable.

The danger with this approach is that it can sometimes seem condescending. I have spent my entire professional life representing building trades unions, so I think I have a pretty good feel for communicating to this audience and you have to remember that just because people don't have that much formal education doesn't mean that they are not smart. So I think Edwards just needs to be careful about this tendency a little bit.

I remain torn between he and Obama at this point.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | August 17, 2007 11:38 AM

"Edwards' biggest constituency (at least in presidential politics) has always been highly educated people who convince themselves that he has mythical powers to appeal to working class voters. Brooks is just the latest member of Edwards' core supporter class."

Or maybe, his biggest constituency are people who think that Edwards's views on health care, the economy and other things are, well I dunno, a little better than the views held by the other candidates? But then, maybe I'm not highly educated--or maybe I am and have fallen under the spell of mythical powers. Welcome aboard David Brooks, whatever your hidden agenda may be.

Really, we have a number of excellent candidates this year--the best lineup I've seen in twenty-five years of local Democratic volunteer work. Why is it necessary to see great flaws in the people who pick one of them over the other?

Posted by TFisher | August 17, 2007 11:40 AM

Matt, I think you are only partly correct in saying that conservatives believe that abolishing the public schools would make education grteat regardless of what parents do. What they berlieve is that if you abolish public schools(and therefore the union) that they can mold the school into an extension of what they teach in their homes. They have this psycho paranoid belief that liberal thought could not exist were it not for the American public education system. Abolish public schools, bring back prayer in school, turn kids into chest thumping prideful to the end Americans and teach them the fine points of "supply side" economics at an early age-just extend the home to the school. Oh, and be able to paddle those evil little monsters when they are bad. See, all fixed now.

Posted by paul | August 17, 2007 11:40 AM

That mawkishness you refer to is part of the reason culturally sophisticated liberals have a stylistic problem with Edwards, sometimes seeing him as 'plastic' or 'phony'.

Effective politicking has to be done on the retail level. Nobody gets to the credible presidential level without lots of "phoniness," I think. It boils down, again, to a matter of style. Some people are better at projecting their phoniness sincerely, if you will.

Posted by AemJeff | August 17, 2007 11:41 AM

Oh, I couldn't resist...

"That mawkishness you refer to is part of the reason culturally sophisticated liberals have a stylistic problem with Edwards, sometimes seeing him as 'plastic' or 'phony'.

I think it plays well to the audiences Edwards is trying to reach, but it does cause a problem in Edwards' appeal to Democratic culturally elite audiences."

Maybe I'm "culturally sophisticated" because at first chance, I moved out of small town Ohio, first to DC, then to SF, and then to NYC. I'm probably not the best representative for small town Ohio even though I spent years 1-18 in West Virginia or Ohio, and I fully admit that but I really don't know too many folks who find Edwards all that appealing. In fact, my friends from Ohio all quite like Obama. I think it's more than people think yokels will Edwards appealing and I think it's patronizing.

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 11:42 AM

Typo... gosh, I can't write today.

"I think it's more than people think yokels will Edwards appealing and I think it's patronizing."

Should read... I think it's more that people think yokels will find Edwards appealing... and I think it's patronizing.

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 11:45 AM

Typo... gosh, I can't write today.

"I think it's more than people think yokels will Edwards appealing and I think it's patronizing."

Should read... I think it's more that people think yokels will find Edwards appealing... and I think it's patronizing.

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 11:46 AM

I taught the children of working class people for many years in public schools and cannot imagine that slogans about taking responsibility for their children will gain their votes.

They are frequently exhausted at the end of the day, worried about how to make ends meet, and probably feel, perhaps justifiably, that dropping their kids off every day at school is the best they can do. Many did not do so well in school themselves and are often insecure about their ability to help their children with homework and study.

Posted by Peggy | August 17, 2007 11:56 AM

"you have to remember that just because people don't have that much formal education doesn't mean that they are not smart."

No doubt. But note my original distinction.

As stated, I think that Edwards' style is less effective among culturally sophisticated folks.

That's quite different that a smart / not smart distinction.

"I remain torn between he and Obama at this point."

Elect Edwards. He'll stash Barack in the Naval Observatory and him well positioned to take over in 2016.

Posted by Petey | August 17, 2007 11:56 AM

"Elect Edwards. He'll stash Barack in the Naval Observatory and him well positioned to take over in 2016."

That would be nice, I must say.

I have no serious policy beef with Edwards. And no real beef with him as a person. My problem is with Brooks et al. who think that his southern accent automatically make him appealing to Middle American working class voters. I just think it's patronizing.

Posted by Mike | August 17, 2007 11:58 AM

"Or maybe, his biggest constituency are people who think that Edwards's views on health care, the economy and other things are, well I dunno, a little better than the views held by the other candidates? But then, maybe I'm not highly educated--or maybe I am and have fallen under the spell of mythical powers. Welcome aboard David Brooks, whatever your hidden agenda may be."

Heh.

Check out Edwards on healthcare from yesterday.

Posted by Petey | August 17, 2007 12:01 PM

"Mike, because low income and working class voters don't pay attention until 1 month to 2 weeks prior to any election date. To put it bluntly, they have to work too hard to waste time chatting in forums like this about which candidate they like the most. I would caution strongly against assuming much from leads this far out, no matter how strong they look."

Isn't this in effect calling the very people you need to reach out to ignorant? The working class in general did well under Clinton, which is one reason the Clinton presidency was actually rather popular and why the Democrats are more trusted these days on economic issues. Also, Iowa's working class is rather different from, say, South Carolina's working class demographically. Clinton got the nomination in 1992 in part by locking up the black primary vote when Jesse Jackson didn't run. Even if Obama were to drop out, I don't see Edwards getting the black working class primary vote away from Clinton and there's a reason for that. Edwards is the rich, patronizing white politician from the suburbs who comes into the ghetto and tells people there how to live their lives. In addition, we gave Edwards a chance to land a knock-out blow on Cheney in 2004 and he ended up not having any real effect that helped us. Edwards is exactly the type of politician well-off white males think the masses are supposed to like. In addition, his protectionist trade position is basically the Bush attitude transposed onto international economics. While he is better on military issues than Clinton, that's not saying much.

Posted by Reality Man | August 17, 2007 12:47 PM

If taking an interest in your children and demanding that they perform well in school is a "conservative" stance than the most conservaitve people I know are East Coast urban liberal professionals.

Under this standard, the Bay Area might be one of the most conservative places in the country.

Posted by blah | August 17, 2007 1:17 PM

Edwards is the rich, patronizing white politician from the suburbs who comes into the ghetto and tells people there how to live their lives.

Well, I guess that's your opinion. However, Edwards is not from the suburbs, Hillary is. Edwards is, in reality, a product of the working class. Your characterization actually fits Hillary Clinton much better than John Edwards.

Now, Hillary's husband is from the working class and she's riding his coattails, which is a large part of the reason she is currently polling so well. At this stage of their lives, they are both rich and both from the suburbs.

Posted by Pug | August 17, 2007 2:49 PM

"I do believe the orthodox conservative position is that if public school teachers didn't have unions -- or, better, if we didn't have public schools at all -- that education would be great no matter what parents thought or did."

Oh, please, Matt, why do you just caricature folks' views here? You object to the right doing it to liberals. Why is it OK for you to do it?

Posted by Chris | August 17, 2007 2:54 PM

I grew up in a 60k population city in mid-central Republican Ohia (Clark County- very Republican, but went for Gore in 2000 prompting a few elite Brits (like Lady Antonia Frasier) to personally write many of the residents urging them to vote for the Dems again in 2004, which contributed (along with a big evangelical turnout)to the county going overwhemingly for Bush in 2004 i.e. don't mess with my vote. For 35 years,I've been a latte sipping San Franciscan and support Edwards. Agree with Petey on the strength, at this point, of the Clinton brand. Nineties were good times for most (and it didn't just happen--remember the close vote on taxes in '93 and the brainy people Bill chose who made good decisions); people remember Bill, though flawed, like they see Hillary:smart, articulate and working hard everyday, something they may have taken for granted but now know the current occupant lacks bigtime.("Being President is HARD." "Heck of a job there Brownie.") Lot of time before election, any event from another terrorist attack to something less could influence the outcome. Edwards win in Iowa and SC would help, but unfortunately Hillary has the better, more experienced staff including her husband making the decisions. I always worry about her electability.

Posted by Jim | August 17, 2007 2:58 PM

David Brooks is not the man whose opinion I value in whether or not working class men are going to embrace John Edwards. They're not. There's just something about him... and the hair doesn't help.

Brooks in his pink shirts misses this, and it's cute in a condescending way to see him try and tell us what the working class wants. You're way out of your field on this one, on many in fact these days, DB! That's why you write for the NYT -- it doesn't mean people buy your pearly droppings though.

His track record is horrible, yet he keeps chuggin on thinking people don't notice. Not how it works in the working-class DB. You can't buy or assert your way into expertise, no matter your credentials. Results matter, and DB has absolutely nothing to show for his "work" these past few years.

Posted by anonymous | August 17, 2007 5:38 PM

"I do believe the orthodox conservative position is that if public school teachers didn't have unions -- or, better, if we didn't have public schools at all -- that education would be great no matter what parents thought or did."

Too many comments above to check if this point has already been made, but I think you should realize how stupid the above quote was. The reason conservatives like Mickey Kaus want to break the public school/teacher's union monopoly is to break the mindset of the underclass single mother that education is something the government is supposed to unscrew and pour into their child's head. It would also encourage the parents to consider themselves a partner in their kid's education, rather than looking at the school as part of "the system."

Posted by wayne s | August 17, 2007 7:30 PM

David Brooks doesn't have a clue about what makes or breaks a candidate in Ohio. Edwards trying to come off as culturally conservative has about about as much chance to succeed in Ohio as doing a photo-op with Lloyd Carr. Promoting protectionism and economic populism is a strategy for success in Ohio. Not that cultural conservatism can't be employed by Democrats (Ted Strickland received the endorsement of the NRA), it's just that phony cultural conservatism backfires (Strickland's "hunting buddy" John Kerry can attest to that).

Posted by Matthew Struhar | August 17, 2007 8:00 PM

One thing I can assure you is that working-class Democratic primary voters are not going to make up their minds based on who Brooks thinks they should support.

If Edwards gets their votes, he will do it on his own merits, not because of an endorsement from Brooks! So condescending or not, Brooks' opinion means nothing.

Posted by eatbees | August 18, 2007 5:02 AM

Two points. As commented elsewhere, Brooks, the political journalistic hack, is preparing in advance the post primary narrative of the "out of touch" liberal elitists of the Democratic Party rejecting the "man of the people" in favor of a feminist or a black guy.

Second, Brooks is obscuring the compelling appeal of Edward's economic populist message to constituencies previously supposed to be deep in the GOP's pocket by nattering on about Edward's "social conservative style." This makes perfect sense if the politics of social resentment, untethered from economics, has been a winning hand for the past 30 so years. Particularly if your side can't compete in the economic debate. Taking this blinkered view is a way of pumping air into this classic right wing political formula even as events seem to signal its exhaustion.

Whether Brooks is making these journalist ploys out of calculation or simple myopia is beside the point. His noodlings are a good indication of the general state of mind among the upper crust political theorists of the right. The sort that have spent the last 7 years playing variations on the theme of "George W. Bush is middle America." As if they had some special insight into the mental life of countless, faceless "Joe Sixpacks" across the nation from their perches in elite journals and magazines.

Posted by WB Reeves | August 18, 2007 11:44 AM

what he means is that he thinks edwards prefers lettuce to arugula ... in brooks' bizzaro universe, this makes you a salt-of-the-earth "cultural" conservative.

Posted by zafar | August 19, 2007 5:18 AM

With President Hillary Clinton we will have the next best thing to actually having Bill Clinton back in power. Who would have dreamed, at the close of Bill Clinton's 8 years that we could actually get him back so near to the presidency. We will get the competence and gravitas of Mrs. Clinton with the best politician in the history of the United States, Bill Clinton, to help sell her policies.

I am delighted at the prospect.

Douglas

Posted by Douglas | August 19, 2007 9:16 AM