Amidst all of the emotional vilification and praise of Sarah Palin, David Brooks has written the most thoughtful words on the subject that I've read, in his column this morning in the New York Times.

In the course of the column, Brooks describes a classical conservatism that was formative to me in my political philosophy, and in which I read much. After listing conservative commentators who are unimpressed by Palin, Brooks writes,

"...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."

Brooks describes the standards by which I judge theological writing, of which I read a great deal. They are also the standards by which I provide leadership of a congregation and judge the direction of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. (I say that, even with the realization that I am an elitist, if Brooks is correct!)

Or course, it has been years and years since the Republican party nominated a national candidate described by Brooks' words.

In Virginia, I wonder if those words describe two Democrats: Senator Jim Webb and Senator-to-be Mark Warner??

To read Brooks' entire column, paste this into your browser line: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin