I work in academe. Moreover, I am also a part of this esteemed fraternity and socially sentient set, perched high above those we look out for. The view is great and the office hours better.

I recently stumbled, by way of Greg McClay’s site at SHUSH , upon a simple, smartly designed blog, more akin to the Wall Street Journal than the college campus pin-up pole collage I expected for Radical Reference librarians. Thankfully patchouli oil can’t be transmitted over IP.

My knowledge of Professor Kathleen de la Pena McCook is limited. In fact, my only recollection of Dr. McCook, aside from her virulence toward conservative politics and politicians, is her unwillingness to engage in dialogue with those who choose not to disclose their “real” name which only serves to save me the trouble of replying to any rebuttal. The company of Hamilton, Madison and Jay isn't so bad either.

Nevertheless, peeking around Radical Reference, this Republican voyeur found a pithy little nugget blogged by Dr. McCook that impeccably illustrates the arrogance and bumbling logic regularly displayed by many of my liberally disposed colleagues. Dr. McCook poses the following rhetorical questions with Bush: It's About Me and My Crusade

The obvious question: will the Protector-as-Missionary bit sell? Will voters hear the term "liberty century" and be moved? Or will they ask, is that the name of a new car? It's one thing to turn a lemon (a messy war now considered a mistake by a majority of Americans) into lemonade. But can Bush turn that lemon into blessed wine?

Let’s begin with Dr. McCook’s business about “liberty century”. It’s evident that Dr. McCook believes she gets “this”. However she quickly follows with a recurring theme indicative to many liberal academicians, intellectual paternalism. Or in this case maternalism, implicitly passing judgment upon the huddled masses ability to get "this". (I wonder if these same voters were any smarter four years ago when a majority voted for Gore?) Smug for sure, but here is the kicker.

Dr. McCook then chooses to support her thesis, better chance opportunity for a little Bush bashin’, by seconding the supposed war sentiments of these same yokels inclined to conflate our President’s vision for the future with something resembling a Buick Skylark. In fact, she prefers to poke some highbrow semantic fun at the hayseed's lofty ideal.

Subtle, yet no less offensive to this Christian Catholic is Dr. McCook's choice of Christianity to draw her analogy to this despised President with the Christ complex. Of course it's no revelation, pardon the pun, that trivializing anything associated with Christianity is fair game in diversity conscious academic circles.

Unmitigated arrogance or just plain dumb? You be the judge.

(For the record, I will offer some evidence of those for whom I have a great deal of confidence, the American people.)

Roper Center at University of Connecticut
June 15, 2004

QUESTION: And which (2004 presidential election) candidate--George W. Bush, John Kerry or Ralph Nader--do you think would do the best job of handling...Iraq and War on terror?

• George W. bush       - 54%  
• John Kerry           - 29  
• Ralph Nader          -  5  
• Not sure/Refused     - 11

More importantly, the salient issue here is the disturbing perception of the liberal “learned” class within academe of "everyone else". Even at my relatively tender academic age, I’m happy to report the indoctrination by way of library conferences, faculty committees and pedagogical prattle has failed miserably with me. Tweed jackets and Volvo wagons do not a wise man, or woman, make. I happen to place a great deal of trust in the American public and their ability to discern. That stands even if Senator Kerry wins the election.

Perhaps if Dr. McCook would pause and reflect on the role of the institution that we both share great affection for, the library, and its collective impact on shaping American sensibilities, she may arrive at a new found respect for those peering up at her ivory tower.