Limo Driver Murders Limousine Liberal!

Article by Jim Goad.
It’s no coincidence that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were born into cozy bourgeois households nestled high above the dirty claws of proletarian squalor. Neither is it a coincidence that the loudest voices squalling these days against “the rich” and “the powerful” are themselves comically wealthy and unduly influential. It’s not coincidental at all. But it’s intensely weird.

One of the modern era’s biggest Big Lies—the size of Rosie O’Donnell if she were a Macy’s Parade blimp or Oprah Winfrey’s buttocks if they were carved into Mount Rushmore—is that the political “right” represents only the rich, whereas the “left” protects the interests of the poor, the whole poor, and nothing but the poor. The most relentless proponents of this myth, at least from my relentless observations, are extremely well-to-do leftists.

Being very rich and pretending you speak for the very poor—all while either openly mocking or silently ignoring everyone in between—is a tradition that spans continents and centuries. Just as I presume every culture on Earth has a euphemism for “blowjob,” it seems as if they all have terms to describe what are known in America as “limousine liberals,” or as Tom Wolfe famously dubbed them, the purveyors of “radical chic.” In England such types are known as the “chattering classes,” “parlor pinks,” and “champagne socialists” —a term the Swiss also use. The Irish label them “smoked-salmon socialists.” Swedes tag them as the “red wine left.” Aussies call them “chardonnay socialists,” “latte liberals,” and “salon communists.” France, Peru, and Portugal all have terms that translate to “caviar left.” Poles refer to them as “coffee shop revolutionaries.” The Japanese equivalent is Botchan Sayoku, which translates to something along the lines of “stridently leftist schmuck from well-heeled family who is tragically clueless regarding how the world actually operates.”

Categories: Uncategorized

4 replies »

  1. Good article. Some are just really wealthy liberals. Some are former working class who achieved middle to upper middle class lifestyle through climbing the managerial ranks. (such as my background) I can’t emphasize what the author is saying more than what he wrote.

    As a middle class cultural leftist myself, I don’t see anything wrong with having more money than the average person and sympathizing for the impoverished or oppressed. It can lead to community-benefiting programs in education, food, etc. It can even be more beneficial when one takes the time to respect the indigenous wishes of a population. (Hence the success of Marx, Fred Hampton, and even Cincinnatian homeless advocate, Buddy Gray) However, it becomes an issue when these types of attitudes take place in policy.

    While upper middle class jobs get protected by massive amounts of license cartelization and other forms of regulation, opportunities and lifestyles of the poor get harmed by welfare policies and absurd occupational licensing fees.

  2. This was sort of where I saw such common agreement between Dean Baker and Walter Williams. Dean Baker in his book argued that such regulations were in favor of “the conservative class.” I’d argue differently, in that such regulations benefited upper middle class liberals equally. And maybe that explains why he gets so frustrated at the anti-market rhetoric of the left.

Leave a Reply