Hope: It's not just for the college-educated

David Brooks is at it again. This time, in his op-ed piece, "Questions for Dr. Retail," he challenges Barack Obama's message of hope. God forbid we should actually aspire to be educated, change, and grow. What a dismal outlook those options offer.

In his essay, Brooks notes the distinct contrast between the educational backgrounds of Obama supporters, versus those who would like to see Hillary Clinton win this historic election. "Hillary Clinton is a classic commodity provider. She caters to the less-educated, less-pretentious consumer," Brooks writes. "Barack Obama is an experience provider. He attracts the educated consumer," he continues.

His very use of the word pretentious to describe college-educated voters provides a clear understanding of Brooks' perspective on education. What I would like to know is, since when has it been pretentious to value knowledge and to encourage self-growth through education? What sane person anywhere would declare that the less educated you are, the better off? And yet, that seems to be Brooks' view.

Seemingly without realizing it, Brooks makes this point himself when he later writes:

DR. RETAIL: The consumer marketplace has been bifurcating for years! It’s happening because the educated and uneducated lead different sorts of lives. Educated people are not only growing richer than less-educated people, but their lifestyles are diverging as well. A generation ago, educated families and less-educated families looked the same, but now high school graduates divorce at twice the rate of college graduates. High school grads are much more likely to have kids out of wedlock. High school grads are much more likely to be obese. They’re much more likely to smoke and to die younger.

Their attitudes are different. High school grads are much less optimistic than college grads. They express less social trust. They feel less safe in public. They report having fewer friends and lower aspirations. The less educated speak the dialect of struggle; the more educated, the dialect of self-fulfillment.

Did you hear the message of Clinton’s speech Tuesday night? It’s a rotten world out there. Regular folks are getting the shaft. They need someone who’ll fight tougher, work harder and put loyalty over independence.

Then did you see the Hopemeister’s speech? His schtick makes sense if you’ve got a basic level of security in your life, if you’re looking up, not down. Meanwhile, Obama’s people are so taken with their messiah that soon they’ll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings. There’s a “Yes We Can” video floating around YouTube in which a bunch of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and the guy from the Black Eyed Peas are singing the words to an Obama speech in escalating states of righteousness and ecstasy. If that video doesn’t creep out normal working-class voters, then nothing will.

Hopemeister. Good God. You'd think Obama was advocating for sending every American child to work in a sweat shop...when in fact, it's his very message of hope that appeals to these so-called "educated voters."

Brooks would have served the conversation much better if he had examined why it is that so much of middle American has lost hope. Why is it mostly the college-educated who have grand visions of possibility and promise? And, most importantly, why aren't we doing MORE to encourage Hillary's struggling masses – those who feel they are being shafted – to take ownership, take control, and know they need not settle for lives of mediocrity?

I keep reading that Obama is all smoke and mirrors, a great orator with no real message. Those who espouse such comments clearly are not listening. One – just one – piece of Obama's message is the goal of making a college education available to anyone who wants it. Because he actually understands the divide of which Brooks writes and he wants to build a bridge across the chasm. Thing is, those who want it will use this opportunity – and those who would rather sit and point their fingers at someone else for their problems and their lousy luck will continue to do so. What then, David Brooks?

Maybe we need to revision this contrast between the candidates and call Barack Obama's one of solution and Hillary Clinton's one of victimhood. Strangely enough – for one assumes a significant degree of education on Brooks' part – he seems to embrace the latter.