Hoisted On An Embarrassing Petard

Puzzling it most certainly is. That somehow politicians of the socialist stripe seem always - while championing the struggle of the proletariat - to have come themselves from a life of privilege. These well-brought-up and cosseted, well-educated creatures of a privileged society appear to be fascinated by the state of society's underdog. Is it a sense of oblivious righteousness, a sense of guilt, a sense of paternalism, what is it exactly that compels some individuals from comfortable and comforting backgrounds to champion the have-nots?

And doesn't it strike an odd chord that these individuals choose to do just that, incite on behalf of those with few choices in their underprivileged lives, while personally continuing to lean on their privileges? In sympathy with the poor and the destitute, the homeless, the uneducated, the unwaged, the working poor, the dross of society, do they divulge their personal wealth and dissolve their holdings in support of the poor? No, they rage against the unfairness of society and urge others to support and uphold the rights of the disadvantaged.

Think about it: a young boy is chauffeur-driven to school on a daily basis. His socialist-politician father insists not for his son's education is a private school; rather he is enrolled in a public school, along with all the other children from mixed economic and social backgrounds. The boy learns well how to take the best from the universal system; observes his classmates, their deprived backgrounds ensuring that their learning curve remains arrested behind his own. In his turn he takes up the banner from his retiring politican father and rousters for equality in society.

Is this, on the face of it, a good thing for society, or is it a bold statement for the effectiveness and usefulness of hypocrisy in action? When unfortunate situations arise which shine the light of reality on such situations the embarrassment resulting from such revelations is brief and the results inconclusive; no harm done. An opaque veil is pulled tighter over the background and the socialist-oriented politician takes up his/her socially sanctioned cudgel once more.

France, in any event, is a socialist-leaning country to begin with. Equality, Liberty, Fraternity; is that not so? Isn't that what the French Revolution gifted to the world at a critical time in history? But damn, it never fails to sting when one realizes that too much of what is presented as reality is but a sham, a useful facade. Segolene Royal, revealed as a Champagne socialist. She is not wealthy at all, she sniffs, merely well off. Well, lucky her.

But why portray yourself otherwise? And given the fact that she and her husband, Francois Hollande, the Socialist party's chairman are so "well off" that they have set up a real estate company for the purpose of managing their properties, I would venture to say that they are, in fact, wealthy. The purpose of their formal property management company is to enable them to reduce he amount they must pay in wealth tax. A tax imposed upon those whose holdings are deemed to be rather more than "well off."

In her defence, Ms. Royal repeats an old canard so often handy to those in her circumstances, that their backgrounds exempt them from the responsibility of honesty. "I started my life with nothing, so this is the fruit of my labour after 30 years of professional life. I am well off and I think it is normal to pay the wealth tax." Most normal people do begin life with very little, but the fruit of their labours after a life of unremitting toil does not often result in wealth. She continues to label herself "well off" and feels it normal to pay the wealth tax, but the record indicates otherwise.

She refers to being one of eight children of a thrifty army officer, with a "hard childhood". Her husband who has stated that he "hates the rich" believes they should be taxed heavily, but both she and he took deliberate personal steps to enrich themselves further by withholding taxes, by attempting to forestall the payment of full wealth taxes. Isn't it odd how personal circumstances deem one to be different, more ennobled, more entitled because one campaigns for the underdog, than those who merely take their wealth for granted and carry on?

"I have learned about honesty and truth" she avers, but she does not apologize for her greedy attempts to forestall paying the state taxes due as a result of her wealth. Instead, she accuses her political adversaries of smear tactics. Were there no reason to point a finger of hypocritical guilt at her, such tactics would not reasonably be successful, nor even attempted.

Politician, heal thyself.