Posted on 08/03/2010 3:03:21 AM PDT by Scanian
It's the summer of John Kerry's $7-million yacht and Chelsea Clinton's fairy-tale $2-million wedding at a faux-Versailles estate in New York. Throw in the First Family's royal progress from one tony vacation spot to another, and even the Boston Globe mutters about Marie Antoinette.
Well, you wouldn't expect liberals to be writing about $800,000 city manager salaries out in Bell, California.
For conservative readers interested in a bit of the high life, there's The Wall Street Journal's review of Aristocrats by Lawrence James.
No, Aristocrats is not yet another Kennedy hagiography or a scholarly analysis of John Kerry's haughty demeanor. It is not a detailed analysis of Chelsea Clinton's political pedigree. It's not about our modern liberal aristocracy at all. Instead, it's all about the British aristocracy, and it features a luscious color picture of John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough and ancestor of the pugnacious Winston Churchill.
For all their sentimental ideology of chivalry, the Brit aristocrats were a nasty lot, writes Ferdinand Mount in the review.
"For greed, brutality, quarrelsomeness and shameless treachery, the nobility of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland could, at least until the 19th century, offer strong competition to its noxious European cousins."
In this season of Blago from Chicago and Charlie Rangel from Harlem, what has changed?
The official ideology of our liberal friends is justice and compassion. Give a liberal half an hour and he'll wax sentimental about it all. But for greed, check the Democratic machine in any major city. For quarrelsomeness, check the lefty "progressive" blogosphere. For shameless treachery, check the Democratic majorities in Congress.
All in all, it seems, the British noble lords talked a good line about chivalry and service, but they were "ultimately concerned with self-preservation and material advantage." Anyone heard the one about the Cornhusker Kickback recently? Back in the old days, "Lord Egremont paid £40,000 in 1787 for the Sussex [Parliamentary] seat of Midhurst -- in real terms as much as you might need to pay to run for governor of California today."
The British aristocracy had, at least, a sense of duty, and they believed in a good death. Our modern aristocrats seem to lack even that. They make up for that with a vast sense of entitlement. And why not? If you teach your supporters that they are entitled to all the pensions and health care they can demand from the taxpayers through their government employee unions, it only makes sense that you, their evolved and ethical leaders, are entitled to all the privileges the aristocrats enjoyed under the old regime. Certainly the Obama aristocrats believe in the same exemption from taxation enjoyed by feudal barons. The Clinton crowd believed in applying the ancient droit de seigneur to the modern Oval Office.
Nothing became the British aristocracy more than their way of giving up political power. Unlike the bloody mess of the French Revolution and the century-long French culture war between the Republic and the Church, the British aristocrats gave up power peacefully in the Great Reform Bill of 1832.
How did it happen? It took the leadership of the Duke of Wellington in the House of Lords. It was he, the hero of the Napoleonic Wars, who persuaded his fellow land-owning Tory "ultras" to abstain in the final vote on the Reform Bill that marked the end of the landed power.
I wonder how our Obama aristocracy will behave when it is time to give up the liberal power. The prospect is ominous. In the last generation, our Democratic friends reacted to the midterm victory of the Gingrich Republicans with disbelief, and to the victory of George W. Bush with angry denial.
Now we have Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) reacting with outrage last week to Republican opposition to a health care bill for first responders. So we know that the liberal "ultras" will be difficult to handle after the next conservative victory. The liberal country squires, the land-grant college professors, may be easiest to handle. They have done well out of the credentialist enclosures of the 20th century that drove millions off the land to purchase worthless university degrees. But when the higher-education bubble pops due to over-building, spending cuts, and online courses, they may be glad to sue for peace.
The angry-left street fighters of the blogs -- let's call them "blue shirts" -- will need a firm hand from some liberal icon, the lefty equivalent of the Duke of Wellington. Is there a liberal with that level of authority? Has there ever been a liberal who could step up to such a role?
In the end, the Obama aristocracy is just another ruling class, and all ruling classes end up extinct. Like the British aristocracy.
They will scream, cry and defectate in their underpants as we exact justice upon them.
Marie Antionette Obama says, “Don’t let them eat that cake!”
Marie Antionette Obama says, “Don’t let them eat that cake!”
Voter intimidation,ballot stuffing, vote fixing, etc..
When and if that fails I am afraid we will see rioting and blood in the street.
THERE IS A WAR COMING
As Lord Acton once said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
They will react with disbelief and no grace when they lose power, for they all believe to their core that they are Good and all others Eeeeevil and that those who’d vote them out must be Stupid, as they believe all people not either in government or connected MUST be.
Since Obama took office:
I have not been golfing once.
I have not had a vacation.
I have not had steak waygu.
I have not had lobster.
I have not flown anywhere.
I have not hired a new employee.
I have not invested in us dominated stocks.
I have not feted parties at my house.
I have not slept soundly for fear of economic uncertainty.
From your list I can see you are one of the engines of our economy. Obama doesn’t like you.
Today I had a meeting with the sorts of people Obama likes. They were discussing ways to use government funding to enable two couples, both on public assistance, to continue doing so. One has a baby less than a month old, and is now living in a shelter. The other is selling drugs.
I’m not kidding.
It will be hard to identify the enemy. A (D) may be all that we have to operate with.
They will pay A BIG PRICE for robbing Americans of their God-given freedom.
Today? Wow you are busy it’s only 7am EDT
LLS
Same here.
LLS
“Two couples”, I assume at least one member of couple no. 1 is “living in a shelter” with a one month old. And “couple” no. 2 is a “drug dealer”. Why is my crap detector alarm ringing?
Good one, but I would add,
Marie Antionette Obama says “Let them only drive the $41,000 Chevy Volt!”
And until real patriots are elected who aren’t afraid to put these crooks in prison, we’ll continue the spiral downward. And that started with George W. “why can’t we all get along and move forward” Bush. The Clintons should have been arrested and tried for treason. But, instead he ends up working with W for world aid and she ends up SOS. And who will be elected this November? I’m betting on a bunch of rino’s.
George Orwell said it all.
It could be the aroma of same emanating from the subjects of this article.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.