Luke Hamilton
Hillary and Joe: without a pot to whizz in
By Luke Hamilton
It is Election Season once again and the Democrats are in a world of hurt. How do I know? I haven't heard this many Limo Liberals pleading poverty since the last Charlie Rangel garage sale. Poor Hillary and Bill were "flat-out broke" after leaving the White House? My heart aches with empathy for those two, as I picture all those late nights having to choose between a caviar-of-the-month membership and a private elocution tutor for little Chelsea. And then there's our poor Vice President. Jumping Joe doesn't have a savings account? Oh, the humanity! I'll bet that he had trouble filling out the application form at the bank. It's hard to remember all of those letters and words, not to mention what order they're supposed to go in. But I guess he doesn't really need his own checking account since he can steal from yours via the redistributive fiscal policies he supports.
Like clockwork, whenever Democrats veer into unfavorable polling territory, they fall back to one of their bread-and-butter plays: class warfare. Americans are again reminded that Republicans are the party of rich, white men (see Exhibit A: the Koch Bros.) who are actively seeking to subsidize the 1% at the expense of the 99%. Of course anyone who has a couple of brain cells to rub together recognizes the inaccuracy of this characterization. Not only are there rich and poor citizens in both parties, but the 6 of the top 10 "heavy hitters" of political donation over the past 25 years have given almost exclusively to Democratic candidates.
This subject could be a never-ending well of body slams, to be used in campaign ads and televised debates by Republicans for decades to come. It could clearly demonstrate how out of touch the Democratic Party is by showing how they mislead Americans daily with protestations of being everyday folks while living in the lap of luxury. It could hamstring the platform of modern leftism by hammering home the inherent disconnect between wealthy liars and their Marxist ideology. With the number of vocal Limousine Liberals in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street combined, the GOP could make a LOT of hay with the American voter on this issue for a very long time. Simply mentioning that 8 of the 10 richest congressional districts in America are represented by Democrats would summarily deflate any and all redistributive rhetoric from leftist loudmouths.
But, the maddening thing is that the professional bed-wetters leading the Republican Party in Washington won't touch this slam dunk with a 25-foot pole. Why? Likely for the same reason they have surrendered in the fight to repeal Obamacare: they won't fight against their own interests. Boehner & Co. can't fight to repeal Obamacare because they want to get their chance behind the wheel. Similarly, they won't call out the professional leeches across the aisle because they want to continue lining their pockets with our money as they've been doing for years. They don't want to call attention to the fact that they have abandoned their conservative pretensions to run unabashedly to the gangrenous bosom of crony capitalism. The sad truth is that they are ideologically closer to Elizabeth Warren and Henry Waxman than they are to you and me.
What about this claim of poverty on the part of Shrillary and her broke buddies? Actually, they might be telling the truth. Perhaps we should have a bit more compassion for these folks because in today's marketplace, they really are poor. In fact, anyone who wants to can be considered "poor." Poverty is no longer an objective categorization based on measureable data; it is an identity and the Identity Politics of the Left is unescapable these days. Leftism has become exclusively tribalist in their ideological identification. Meaning and identity are not intrinsic, but are found in association with other members of a tribe. Man doesn't necessarily mean "man" anymore. It means whatever each group decides that it means, from male member of the human species to transgendered female who identifies as male in public. As such, "poor" doesn't have to mean one who suffers from poverty, it can also mean one who is unable to afford what one wants or feels entitled to own.
As the great Thomas Sowell once wrote:
© Luke Hamilton
June 30, 2014
It is Election Season once again and the Democrats are in a world of hurt. How do I know? I haven't heard this many Limo Liberals pleading poverty since the last Charlie Rangel garage sale. Poor Hillary and Bill were "flat-out broke" after leaving the White House? My heart aches with empathy for those two, as I picture all those late nights having to choose between a caviar-of-the-month membership and a private elocution tutor for little Chelsea. And then there's our poor Vice President. Jumping Joe doesn't have a savings account? Oh, the humanity! I'll bet that he had trouble filling out the application form at the bank. It's hard to remember all of those letters and words, not to mention what order they're supposed to go in. But I guess he doesn't really need his own checking account since he can steal from yours via the redistributive fiscal policies he supports.
Like clockwork, whenever Democrats veer into unfavorable polling territory, they fall back to one of their bread-and-butter plays: class warfare. Americans are again reminded that Republicans are the party of rich, white men (see Exhibit A: the Koch Bros.) who are actively seeking to subsidize the 1% at the expense of the 99%. Of course anyone who has a couple of brain cells to rub together recognizes the inaccuracy of this characterization. Not only are there rich and poor citizens in both parties, but the 6 of the top 10 "heavy hitters" of political donation over the past 25 years have given almost exclusively to Democratic candidates.
This subject could be a never-ending well of body slams, to be used in campaign ads and televised debates by Republicans for decades to come. It could clearly demonstrate how out of touch the Democratic Party is by showing how they mislead Americans daily with protestations of being everyday folks while living in the lap of luxury. It could hamstring the platform of modern leftism by hammering home the inherent disconnect between wealthy liars and their Marxist ideology. With the number of vocal Limousine Liberals in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Wall Street combined, the GOP could make a LOT of hay with the American voter on this issue for a very long time. Simply mentioning that 8 of the 10 richest congressional districts in America are represented by Democrats would summarily deflate any and all redistributive rhetoric from leftist loudmouths.
But, the maddening thing is that the professional bed-wetters leading the Republican Party in Washington won't touch this slam dunk with a 25-foot pole. Why? Likely for the same reason they have surrendered in the fight to repeal Obamacare: they won't fight against their own interests. Boehner & Co. can't fight to repeal Obamacare because they want to get their chance behind the wheel. Similarly, they won't call out the professional leeches across the aisle because they want to continue lining their pockets with our money as they've been doing for years. They don't want to call attention to the fact that they have abandoned their conservative pretensions to run unabashedly to the gangrenous bosom of crony capitalism. The sad truth is that they are ideologically closer to Elizabeth Warren and Henry Waxman than they are to you and me.
What about this claim of poverty on the part of Shrillary and her broke buddies? Actually, they might be telling the truth. Perhaps we should have a bit more compassion for these folks because in today's marketplace, they really are poor. In fact, anyone who wants to can be considered "poor." Poverty is no longer an objective categorization based on measureable data; it is an identity and the Identity Politics of the Left is unescapable these days. Leftism has become exclusively tribalist in their ideological identification. Meaning and identity are not intrinsic, but are found in association with other members of a tribe. Man doesn't necessarily mean "man" anymore. It means whatever each group decides that it means, from male member of the human species to transgendered female who identifies as male in public. As such, "poor" doesn't have to mean one who suffers from poverty, it can also mean one who is unable to afford what one wants or feels entitled to own.
As the great Thomas Sowell once wrote:
-
"Poverty used to mean hunger and inadequate clothing to protect you against the elements, as well as long hours of grinding labor to try to make ends meet. But today, most of the people living below the official poverty line not only have enough food, they are actually slightly more likely than others to be overweight. Ordinary clothing is so plentiful that young hoodlums fight over designer clothes or fancy sneakers. As for work, there is less of that in lower income houses today than among the affluent."
© Luke Hamilton
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
