Of course, see Michael Strong and John Mackey, "Be the Solution: How Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the World's Problems" for a manifesto appropriate to "Whole Foods Republicans."
"The same is true for Mrs. Palin's inability to name a single newspaper she reads. If the GOP doesn't want to be branded the "Party of Stupid," it could stand to nominate more people who can speak eloquently on complicated policy matters."
So what. Gi-normous non sequitur. It does not follow that reading a newspaper leads one to speak eloquently on policy matters. I think Petrilli would have a better chance arguing that reading a newspaper makes you dumb. Besides, who needs to read newspapers in the era of the 24 hour news cycle and endless blog posts?
The most toenail-curling, cringe-inducing sentence:
"A more enlightened approach would be to go after college-educated voters, to make the GOP safe for smarties again."
When was either political party ever "safe for smarties"? Why is getting smarter people into politics a worthwhile goal? I want the smart people designing synthetic heart valves and stronger jet engines. I want the smart people to spend their time making life easier for me rather than more confusing, which is exactly what's happening right now with the supernerd stampede in D.C.
Whole Foods is one of my favorite topics of conversation with young Rs. Once I tell them I shop there, they always have a smirk, and then rejoice in the idea that someone so smart (I have too many degrees) could be so stupid as to pay MORE for food. When I explain that I enjoy the shopping experience, helpful employees, and the enviro/ecological issues the store addresses, they break out into full laughter. What I've come to realize, and what I think the op-ed is pointing out, is that intellectualism -i.e. thinking about things- automatically results in you being dismissed. The basic thought pattern is: Rs don't think, we don't have to, we are right! (Of course, this is the same group of people that asked me who Ayn Rand was when I mentioned that one of her books was going to be made into a new movie).
The Op-ed makes a good point that the Rs need to court these people if they hope to expand the party, but then again, people that shop in WFs will ask questions and challenge assumptions. Something the Palin, Beck et al. crowd would never accept.
5 comments:
Of course, see Michael Strong and John Mackey, "Be the Solution: How Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the World's Problems" for a manifesto appropriate to "Whole Foods Republicans."
Michael Strong, www.flowidealism.org
I beg to differ. Petrilli's article ain't so hot.
"The same is true for Mrs. Palin's inability to name a single newspaper she reads. If the GOP doesn't want to be branded the "Party of Stupid," it could stand to nominate more people who can speak eloquently on complicated policy matters."
So what. Gi-normous non sequitur. It does not follow that reading a newspaper leads one to speak eloquently on policy matters. I think Petrilli would have a better chance arguing that reading a newspaper makes you dumb. Besides, who needs to read newspapers in the era of the 24 hour news cycle and endless blog posts?
The most toenail-curling, cringe-inducing sentence:
"A more enlightened approach would be to go after college-educated voters, to make the GOP safe for smarties again."
When was either political party ever "safe for smarties"? Why is getting smarter people into politics a worthwhile goal? I want the smart people designing synthetic heart valves and stronger jet engines. I want the smart people to spend their time making life easier for me rather than more confusing, which is exactly what's happening right now with the supernerd stampede in D.C.
Whole Foods is one of my favorite topics of conversation with young Rs. Once I tell them I shop there, they always have a smirk, and then rejoice in the idea that someone so smart (I have too many degrees) could be so stupid as to pay MORE for food. When I explain that I enjoy the shopping experience, helpful employees, and the enviro/ecological issues the store addresses, they break out into full laughter. What I've come to realize, and what I think the op-ed is pointing out, is that intellectualism -i.e. thinking about things- automatically results in you being dismissed. The basic thought pattern is: Rs don't think, we don't have to, we are right! (Of course, this is the same group of people that asked me who Ayn Rand was when I mentioned that one of her books was going to be made into a new movie).
The Op-ed makes a good point that the Rs need to court these people if they hope to expand the party, but then again, people that shop in WFs will ask questions and challenge assumptions. Something the Palin, Beck et al. crowd would never accept.
Besides, who needs to read newspapers in the era of the 24 hour news cycle and endless blog posts?
Yes, who needs in depth news when we can just hear sound bites and meaningless "analysis" from talking heads!
Why is getting smarter people into politics a worthwhile goal?
So we shouldn't want any smart people writing our laws and deciding our public policies?
"Yes, who needs in depth news when we can just hear sound bites and meaningless "analysis" from talking heads!"
Which newspaper provides "in depth news"? You need to read Evelyn Waugh's Scoop.
"So we shouldn't want any smart people writing our laws and deciding our public policies?"
Why should reducing freedom become more efficient?
Post a Comment