“Vee Vill Make Zee Rulez Und You Will Follow Zem!”

     The madness swirling around us can seem too multifarious to summarize, yet every now and then we get a genuinely iconic incident — and it needn’t be something that involves laws, interest groups, or governments:

     Dear Amy: Four months before my daughter’s wedding, she told me that her uncle (my brother, “Dave”) would make her feel unsafe if he was a guest. She asked me not to invite him.
     My daughter is very politically progressive, as are many of her friends, and although she and Dave have always had a good relationship (I thought), he is a conservative voter and has supported candidates we all abhor.
     Dave has always been very nice, so my daughter’s request surprised me.
     I wrote Dave a very nice note, telling him that we would not be comfortable with him at the wedding and that he would not be invited.
     Dave did not respond and did not attend.
     Afterward, I sent him a card and pictures from the wedding, all in an effort to make him feel like he was not being totally left out.
     I have not heard from Dave since then. When my siblings found out what I had done they were angry with me.
     That is just one problem.
     Another problem is that Dave has not sent my daughter and son-in-law a wedding gift.
     In the past, Dave has given family members wedding checks in excess of $1,000.
     She says she was counting on receiving the same type of gift.
     My husband says I should drop it – but I can’t. Dave’s behavior is upsetting and embarrassing to me.
     How can I get my brother to recognize and change his petty behavior?
     Please don’t tell me that I’m the one who started this by not inviting my brother to the wedding. After all, he’s a grown man, while my daughter is young and just starting out.

     Other writers have already ridiculed the attitude expressed in this “complaint.” I won’t bother. Rather, I’d like my Gentle Readers to ponder what it says about the arrogance of the Left. Plainly, the “progressive” correspondent above has decided that she will do the rule-making, whereas her excluded brother Dave must do the rule-following. Is this not a perfect miniature of the Left’s sociopolitical stance?

     “Rules for thee, not for me” has always been the attitude of self-proclaimed superiors. We see it everywhere today. “Our speech is violence; their violence is speech” is merely one example. “Unsafe” always applies to persons in the Right; never shall that characterization pertain to anyone in the Left. And of course we have many cases of prominent Leftists proclaiming that we must sacrifice our freedom, safety, and prosperity for their causes, while they insulate themselves from the implications of their pronouncements and the consequences of their policies.

     Black-letter law? Forget it. If the Constitution of the United States can be endlessly reinterpreted as a “living document,” then why not any other statute? Haven’t we seen that already? Offenses against federal gun laws are never prosecuted against Leftist figures, their families, or their allies. Tax code violations? Does the name Al Sharpton ring any bells? And what’s this about our “carbon footprints?” The people shrieking about that fly around the world in private jets to lecture us about it.

     The remarkable thing about it all is how uniform and unreflective that attitude is among Leftists. The contradictions penetrate very few heads. Of course those at the top know what they’re doing; how could they not? But what defect of the mind accounts for the slavish dedication and adulation they get from their followers? Do they really think that after the revolution they’ll all be made commissars?

     We theophages have a saying: “God is not mocked.” Sometimes it’s phrased a bit differently: “God sees the truth, but waits.” The completion of this argument requires no great penetration or intellect, but it can try one’s patience all the way to its stops. Tom Petty was more right than he knew.