In America, Noblesse Oblige Isn’t Just for Noblemen

I was on Larry King Live with Seth MacFarlane, the Family Guy guy. I like him. I like the pleasant feelings in my iPhone pocket when I’m with him. It’s the gentle vibration of women I know texting to remind me that, if I get a chance, I could give Seth their cell phone numbers.

MacFarlane is funny, smart, attractive, and filthy-dirty-corporation-richer than the god neither of us believes in. Besides being a funny rich guy, Seth is also a liberal, and some women dig that. He’s a real Hollywood liberal. Larry King brought up the Tea Party on the show. Rachael Harris, the woman from The Hangover, was on the show with us, and she explained that Tea Party people were racists. When I asked her to elaborate, she couldn’t think of a racist part of their platform (maybe partially because they don’t have a platform). Most of them are white, though, and maybe that’s what racism means now. Most of the Sierra Club is white, and most of Jon Stewart’s audience is white, but those didn’t come up.

Seth didn’t jump on board with the racism thing. Seth’s problem seemed to be that the Tea Party people were politically in favor of policies that Seth felt were against their own interests. This is a position I’ve heard others take before. Seth wasn’t hating the Tea Party people, he really wanted what he thought was best for them. His heart was in the right place. What bothered him so about the Tea Party was that they didn’t know what was best for their own damn selves. Seth is very talented and works hard, but he also seems to think he was lucky too. That seems reasonable. He had done well, and he didn’t need his taxes any lower. He wanted to pay his share, and he thought his share could be even higher. The Tea Party was pushing for things that would help Seth his own damn self and that were bad for the average Tea Party member. Seth explained that if the Tea Party got their way, Seth would, his own damn self, keep even more damn money. That really bugged him. He couldn’t dig that at all. How could these nuts possibly be pushing for things that weren’t in their own immediate self-interest? The Tea Party people were trying to stop the government from doing things that were financially good for the Tea Party individuals themselves. Seth didn’t want people who were much less well-off than he was pushing for things that were good for rich fucks like Seth. I understood that Seth thought that anyone pushing for something politically not in their own financial self-interest was stupid and/or manipulated by big corporate rich-fuck money. This was my understanding of his position; those aren’t the words that he used. I might be unfairly lumping Seth in with other people I’ve heard talk about this. This is an argument I’ve heard a lot. It’s an argument some liberals I know seem comfortable with.

Larry and Rachael were nodding. It seemed they’d heard this argument before, and it made sense to them.

What the fucking fuck?

Huh?

As I see it, any person making this argument is kind of bragging that his political position is so purely altruistic that it is against his own self-interest. He cares so much about other people, justice, and pure political ideology that he has the moral strength to argue for something that isn’t in his self-interest. I’ve heard a lot of rich Hollywood people make that argument. They seem to be very proud of it.

On the other hand, if a . . . I guess the word would be “peasant,” cares enough about other people, justice, and pure political ideology to argue for something that isn’t in his or her puny ignorant best interest, he or she is a manipulated idiot.

The problem with this argument is it’s a robot killer! It uses the claim that the speaker arguing against their own self-interest shows how strongly they believe that the other side shouldn’t be arguing against their own self-interest. Let me break it down to this: “I’m arguing against my own self-interest in saying that no one should argue against his own self-interest.” Arghhh!

The only way this makes sense is if you think that rich people can argue against their own self-interest, but less rich people can’t. Seth, I love you, but this is the United States of America—one doesn’t have to be rich to be guided by what one thinks is right. Morality can trump self-interest in good people of all classes. If it’s good enough for you, it’s good enough for them. Me, well, I’d like my position to be moral and in my self-interest—and I think those aren’t that often mutually exclusive.

I, my own damn self, am not a Tea Party supporter. I disagree with them on social liberties, our overseas wars, Obama’s birthplace, Sarah Palin, and the conspicuous absence of tea at their rallies. But I do believe if Seth dropped his fat wallet at a Tea Party rally, the person who picked it up would be very likely to give it back to him. And if one of the Tea Party people dropped his skinny wallet near Seth, Seth would give it back. It’s not in either of their immediate self-interest, but it’s the right thing to do. Seth and the Tea Party don’t disagree on doing the right thing, they disagree on what the right thing is. I just wish we all could remember that.

And just for the record, the government doesn’t stop you from paying more than you owe in taxes. If you really believe you should be paying more . . . just skip the deductions. I’m sure you can find a way to give 100 percent of your earnings to the government and not be arrested for anything . . . except vagrancy.

“Have a Cuppa Tea”

—The Kinks