I attended an oyster roast last night just across the farm at the home of a recently acquired friend of mine. He's a private wealth manager in DC, and he and his family bought a house on the farm and renovated it. It's a really beautiful place, and they are great people.
He's a soft Republican; very laid back on social issues, but heavy on smart tax policy. She's another of a growing class of person that I find flocked to the Obama Campaign, and that is the person with so much money that everyday pocketbook issues don't really apply to them, whose understanding of political issues does not go deeper than their "feelings" about a candidate, and who voted for "change" though not aware what sort of change they were voting for. I addressed these two in an earlier posting, in which I recounted skewering her for not knowing how badly PEBO's tax policies were going to hurt their family.
Also present was a delightful couple who live near my friends back in civilization. They apparently met while working on Capitol Hill, both for serious Dems. They are both very political, and very liberal. Great family, three good kids, etc. She has transitioned into a personal training business (looks great, by the by) catering to the pampered Montgomery County set (country club, private schools, vacation homes, vote Democrat). He recently left 15 years of service on Senate staffs to take on a major lobbying role for a major investment house...working primarily on climate change issues. I really liked these folks...but I could not get over the stirring contradictions.
Here were two true believers....credentials as long as your arm in the great social justice war of the Democrat party....who send their kids to private school, who play tennis and golf at the local country club (probably $75K upfront to join), and who bleed Obama blue. The woman was classic...at one point she unknowingly made a point in conversation that she thought was a positive that I've always considered a negative. She held that "...it was nice to be in a position that there was enough money coming in that they could be really active and dedicated to a lot of liberal positions." Honestly, she thought this was a positive. Because I didn't want to get into a big political discussion with new friends, I kept my rhetorical pistol in my holster. But what about the people who don't have the money you have? What about the people for whom the added tax burden will actually BE a burden? Is that what liberalism is all about--you get yours and then you have the largess to worry about others?
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Swimming in pretty deep waters aren't you son?
This is the second time you've made observations in this blog about a get-together with your highfalutin' friends. Do you view these social events as occasions that are to be enjoyed, or scenarios for anthropological case studies?
A little of both, Sally. But they're hardly "highfalutin'". They just have money. Very different.
Would have been a perfect time to encourage your new liberal friends to do the patriotic thing this year and forego the itemized deductions on their 2008 federal tax returns.
They could get a jump start on their 'giving' by taking the $11k standard deduction instead of itemizing their state income taxes and interest on the McMansion. Means a higher tax bill for sure, but I'm certain they won't mind.
Hey Sally--lot more quiet since the election ended. Many of us miss your quick mind and sharp wit here!
These liberals seem to meet all the stereotypes, almost "cartoonish" in a way.
Are you sure you are not pulling a "Janet Cooke" on us?
Have you ever considered how these "friends" and others will feel when they learn that your friendship is quite questionable? Dissecting and publicly judging the views of new acquaintances -- are not the traits of someone I would openly and willing befriend. You might want to reconsider your method...
Damn, Anonymous, and here I was thinking you and I would be such good friends.
As for my practices, I'm said nothing in this blog that I haven't said to their faces (my neighbors). As for their friends, I am unconcerned.
As one of his 'stereotypically liberal' friends who is also thankful to be in a position to dedicate resources to good causes and positions, I can attest to how thoroughly upfront Bryan is about his assessments in person -- however wrong they are, of course. Always in the spirit of a good debate.
Which always gives me some sliver of hope that he'll one day come over from the dark side and join the good fight.
Clearly you have not yet lived on the Eastern Shore long enough. An article titled "A friendly oyster roast..." and despite one of your lengthier posts, not one word about the oysters. Nothing. That is almost akin to "I met this incredibly hot woman last night..." and then going on to discuss her political persuasion at length but not one word about...well, you know...the other stuff in which we might be more interested. BTW, whenever I encounter someone like this in Maryland (which is everytime I speak to anyone but my mother in Maryland), I always ask them how they're liking the governor they elected. O'Malley never saw a tax he didn't think could be improved by making it higher. I've actually encountered more than a few of these Marylanders who have actually started admitting that it is beginning to hurt a little. That's akin to admitting you are an alcoholic and it is the first step to recovery. If they ever discover another republicn (my mother won't run for office) in Maryland the next step on the road to recovery will be to elect him.
Oh don't worry anon. I'm sure the CW's new Kennedy-esque acquaintances head back to the DeeCee salons with stories of this neanderthal who thinks that productive members of society should be able to keep some of their hard-earned income.
I give the guy credit for not verbally body slamming scum like these folks.
Thank you, Halloween Ghost and Robespierre's GHost....I appreciate your words here.
CW - four replies and STILL not a word about the oysters? In the famous words of Gob Bluth, "C'MON!"
Interestingly, this demographic was also arguably responsible for the outcome of elections in 1952, 1956, 1980 and 1984. The '52 and '80 elections followed elite liberal administrations, and all of them pitted dynamic conservatism against progressive liberalism ('52 and '80 both featured frustrated liberal incumbents, one for want of Korea declined to run, and the other noted for an encounter with a swamp bunny).
The outcomes? Electoral counts of 442-89, 457-73, 489-49, and 525-13.
The popular votes were even more overwhelming. The moral to the story is that as satisfying as the progressive liberal platform seems at first, strong overt conservatism resonates to a more durable and broadly appealing degree.
Now if we only had any strong conservative candidates to choose from...?
Please invite me to the next oyster roast so I can fix your friends. As a moderate Democrat with years of experience teaching people how to connect with independents and soft Republicans, I'm as deeply offended by the "it's nice to be financially comfortable enough to..." mentality as you. So you'll spend less time biting your tongue, and my Dems will be better disciplined, and we'll both be happier people.
...this is not a strategem to get myself free oysters.
Post a Comment