08
Jul
2010
Chelsea Clinton to Marry Goldman Exec
This blog is the furthest thing from a clearinghouse of celebrity gossip, but I heard someone on the radio talking about Chelsea Clinton’s upcoming wedding to a Goldman Sachs investment banker. It just underscores how ludicrous my naive views were when I first got into free market economics.
Back then, I thought “Democrats hate business and enact all sorts of anti-business legislation.” I would have predicted that a “anti-capitalist liberal” like Bill Clinton would have a daughter who married the head of Greenpeace or the UAW.
But no, in the real world, Democrats are cozy with big business and have no problems with wars, while Republicans impose wage and price controls and nationalize banks.
Right, because an ex-president’s daughter necessarily walks totally in lockstep with her father’s party’s views and acts as an arm of their economic policy. (???)
Not “necessarily” (people have free will) but much more often than we might have predicted back in 1992. Reality is much more complicated and subtle than we previously thought. The Democrats are much more complicated and bizarre than we thought. They turn out to be money-grubbing careerists AND people who believe in their God-given right to run the lives of us inferior folks. They are also impervious to seeing themselves as part of the problem and/or anything other than THE SOLUTION. I submit that their strange world view helps explain their completely bizarre non-response to Austrian style arguments which propose to allow the inferiors to muck about on their own without the help of their betters.
The linked article states that “Chelsea is currently pursuing a public-health degree at Columbia University’s School of Public Health”. She clearly has a vision of sterilizing and sanitizing society. All four parents of the couple are career Democrat politicians and Mr. Mezvinsky just got out of prison.
Yes Silas, that was a crucial plank in my worldview. Necessarily, 100%.
I’m sorry for misrepresenting you. Your position is *merely* that an ex-president’s daughter *could* be executing her father’s party’s economic policy via choice of husband. (???)
OK you’ve hit two options so far:
(A) A daughter always shares her parents’ political views.
(B) A daughter sometimes shares her political views.
Is there any other possibility, and one that would be relevant to the point I wanted to make? Hmmm….
I don’t want to keep hitting the ball over the net. I think very often the children of people in a certain class/social niche marry in the same circles. It’s not perfect, but it’s also not random.
And yes, Ronald Reagan’s kid(s?) hated him and tried to embarrass him, but I don’t think Bill and Hillary cringed when Chelsea announced her engagement. That’s certainly not part of the story.
If you prefer, I could have said, “The fact that she’s marrying a Goldman guy reminds me of how Obama appointed the bailout NY Fed King, Geithner, to be his Treasury Sec, and how Bill Clinton pardoned some shady characters, blah blah blah.”
For all we know, maybe “necessarily” is the proper term to use and these “people” are really Kanamits.
You haven’t heard about the secret plan of Goldman Sachs to marry into the Obama family?
Duh, the lizard people don’t want to dilute their bloodlines.
Learning Chelsea’s college major is quite disconcerting. In the 1970s, Thomas Szasz used to describe first lady Rosalynn Carter in Libertarian Review as a clone of Nurse Ratched. Hillary Clinton continued the role. To have Chelsea continue with that theme is frightening.
Instead of viewing our “progressive” opponents as zombies, I think we should view them as Nurse Ratched and ourselves as the inmates in terms of predicting and anticipating their response to our proposals.
Just to be clear, I don’t want you to suffocate me with a pillow.
Can zombies be suffocated with pillows? Just asking.
I recall that back in the early 90’s the groom’s mother, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky cast the deciding vote for a Clinton tax hike. The term back then was, “Those who did well in the 80’s must now pay their fair share,” or something to that effect. It was a disgusting vote. She became a one-term representative. Maybe Clinton offered his oldest child for her vote. The Goldman Sacs angle is icing on the cake.