The Socialist Revolution Will Be Led By the Billionaire Financiers

One of the nice things about antisemitic conspiracy theories encompassing everything (even mutually contradictory things) is that one can blame the Jews for anything.

One of the weirder things about antisemitic conspiracy theories encompassing everything, even mutually contradictory things is that one can somehow manage to knit them all together in a single person.

So it is that NRA chieftain Wayne LaPierre informs a pulsing CPAC crowd that socialism is coming on the backs of ... George Soros. And Michael Bloomberg. And Tom Steyer. (Also, they're all backed by the ghost of Saul Alinsky -- because let's throw in another Jew for good measure).

Soros, as you may recall, grew up under Communist oppression and has devoted a substantial portion of his life to bringing market values to former Eastern bloc states. Bloomberg is perhaps America's most prominent independent political figure, apparently holding down the "Democrats are too liberal but socialism sounds great!" political bloc. Steyer is a run-of-the-mill Democratic Party donor. Each of them made their wealth in ways that are, shall we say, not typically part of the socialist revolutionary gameplan. And none of them have shown the slightest interest in anything but bog-standard liberal (or in Bloomberg's case, Wall Street centrist) political engagement.

No matter. It makes perfect sense to say the billionaires are the heralds of the socialist revolution ... if said billionaires are Jews. That's the logic here. One doesn't need a dogwhistle if one has a bullhorn.

Extra-Diverse Democrats, Part II

Back when we were still in the throes of the 2008 Democratic primary, I predicted that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton would add additional "diversity" to their ticket if nominated (that is, both would select a White male VP).

The reason is that there is a very predictable media narrative that will form if two members of politically underrepresented groups appear on the Democratic ticket. One person is ground-breaking and history-making. Two people, by contrast, is an "affirmative action" choice and proof the Democrats are in thrall to "interest groups." If Obama picks a woman, it will undoubtedly be cast as "appeasing" women's groups who were ready to see Clinton break the ultimate glass ceiling. If Clinton picks a Black running mate, same thing, except replace NOW with the NAACP. This is what Derrick Bell calls the unspoken limit on affirmative action. Even if at first the diversity is applauded, at some point folks will start getting uncomfortable with too many women or people of color.

It's hard to say I was vindicated, given the n of 1. But I think the reasoning holds up, particularly given Wayne LaPierre's comments on Hillary Clinton's presidential run: "Eight Years Of One Demographically Symbolic President Is Enough."