Values? Oh, puhleeeze go there!

David Brooks, not content with slamming Kerry for a perceived (by Brooks, at least) lack of overt religiosity, launches a more generalized 'values' attack, with a somewhat bizarre class warfare twist, in today's New York Times.

When Kerry uses the word "values," it's meant to send a message: I am not who I am. I am not the blue-blooded prep-school kid who married two millionaires, dated a movie star and has a prenup and umpteen homes in tony locales; who has spent the past two decades as a moderately liberal senator from Massachusetts; and who likes to snowboard at Sun Valley and windsurf off Nantucket. I'm just your back-fence neighbor in Mayberry, out there in overalls, sidlin' over to the fence to chat: "Howdy neighbor! Would you like to come visit for a spell and hear about my values of faith, hope and opportunity?"

This is in contrast to the blue-blooded prep-school kid who, during his decades as an alky, used family connections to avoid service in the active duty military, run a few companies into the ground and get planted on a few corporate boards before becoming a visciously conservative governor from Texas, who likes to pre-emptively invade countries and undermine civil liberties.

Some choice, huh?

Of course, Brooks, whose own journey has been from big city college boy to a couple of decades hanging with the media elite in places like New York City, Washington, D.C. and Brussells (that's a suburb of France, right?), exposes his own contempt for 'Mayberry' with his crude stereotype. He's hardly in a position to pass judgement on anyone's values, especially John Kerry's.

Posting at Eschaton, Athenae nails the problem with the 'values' debate as people like Brooks and Bush would define it...

I could go on all day with this nonsense, but the real reason it irritates me is that every time Bush talks about "values," it's code word for God, manners and pissing in a cup after lunch hour. And if you need child care, or housing assistance, well, those aren't subjects to be talked about under the guise of "values." Those don't "strengthen communities."

...and offers an alternate view with which I heartily agree, and on which our opponents can't compete.

It's time for a radical redefinition of what constitutes the "values issues" in this election. Instead of trying to be slightly less craven than the other guy, slightly less offensive on what Bush defines as "values issues," we should raise our own, what we consider "values." And then make him try to out-liberal us.

What kind of values can liberals in general, and Kerry in particular, win on? How about a commitment to the service of others even when that involves risk to self. Faith so deep, so genuine, that it need not be spoken. Compassion that's reflected in deeds, not words. Gratitude enough for what some of us have to provide an avenue for advancement to the rest of us. The honesty to recognize a mistake and the integrity to correct it.

Sorry Mr. Brooks, values aren't about a down-home facility for fracturing the language, or a up-town facility for op-ed snark. Values are a reflection of a life led and lessons learned, and they're reflected in qualities like courage and compassion. When it comes to values, people like Brooks and Bush aren't in the same league as John Kerry. I know it, and come November, the folks in America's Mayberrys, who are a lot sharper than you give them credit for, will know it too.