Well, the ones who campaigned for Republicans certainly were.
"Egghead" specifically referred to Democratic intellectuals seen as being crackpots and/or being sympathetic to communism.
It was a term seized upon by establishment Republicans (and some establishment Democrats) who were themselves college-educated.
It's pretty clear that one here is talking about intellectually-inclined liberals or Democrats in general, despite the way this is typically framed. They are talking about privileged leftists (in both parties) with poor judgment. Apparently a topic of complaint in every country.
This was obviously true for most of the 20c, but it was common for Democrats to (mockingly) call the Republican Party "the party of ideas" in the late 19th century. We take those ideas for granted for now, but no one did more intellectual work than the 1856-1865 Republican Party.
I'm still not sure why the GOP didn't figure this out on its own. Maybe it did and we just don't hear much about it. Interesting that Moynihan says "real Republicans," not "conservatives." The "conservativism" framing may have been inevitable, but strikes me as a strategic error.
This 2015 Politico article is concerned that Trump may be unwilling to listen to GOP intellectuals, or that they'll have nothing offer him. Now the media expresses outrage that pro-Trump intellectuals exist.
"In one form or another all of the major domestic problems facing you derive from the erosion of the authority of the institutions of American society. This is a mysterious process of which the most that can be said is that once it starts it tends not to stop."
"… All we know is that the sense of institutions being legitimate—especially the institutions of government—is the glue that holds societies together. When it weakens, things come unstuck"
"In an economic inversion of the traditional New Deal coalition, the Massachusetts Democratic Party has, over the past decade, increasingly become the party of affluent, liberal, middle-class suburbanites."
"Blue-collar white Catholics, once the mainstay of the Massachusetts Democratic coalition, have in large part been dealt out of the system. They vote in far fewer numbers than in the past, and their votes are no longer reliably Democratic, particularly in presidential contests."
What Emerson, Lincoln, et. al were *trying* to do was unify the country on a stable and ethical long-term basis. The end result was a philosophy that could at least theoretically include all Americans, North or South, black or white, etc.
This is why I'm appalled by the guilt-by-association politics like "southern strategy" that influential Democrats and some Republicans have promoted in recent decades. Reuniting with southerners was always the hope.
*As long as it was done on an ethical basis,* which it was, given the changes made related to the Civil Rights Movement, where Republicans had been front and center. To make that *itself* into a suspect or sinister thing was unforgivable given the history of the parties.
Basically sounds like he wanted to be an old-school Republican. Which the Kennedys likely would have been had it not been for the anti-Catholic bias among MA Republicans at that time. Successful Dem. presidents usually incorporate some elements of old-school Republicanism.
"[RFK] found in Ralph Waldo Emerson's thesis of self-reliance the alternative to big government as a way to cure poverty."
This is what I mean when I say the northern Democrat version of American history and political science is a persistent problem. It's especially destabilizing when deployed in MA, which it rarely was before the last decade.
Yes, because Emerson had already converted everyone who ran in these intellectual circles. But DuBois starts from the assumption that he is inherently in conflict with Emerson, because of the Hegelian interpretation of American history that had already become popular.