Date: 2008-09-04 18:13 Subject: "Slightly To The Right of Attila" Security: Public Location: A paper skiff on the ocean Mood: amused Music: "Eric The Awful" by Ray Stevens Tags: liberal conservative left right attila

Ever heard a liberal attempt to disparage a conservative by describing him as "Slightly to the Right of Attila"?   (The "Attila" in question being generally assumed to be Attila the Hun, of course. I mean, how many other peaple named "Attila" have you ever heard of?)

Historically, Attila the Hun was the leader of a huge mob of nomadic barbarian horsemen back in 434 AD, who preyed upon farmers and tradesmen and the occasional footbound traveller who ventured forth in the hinterlands between one walled city and the next, all up and down Europe, from Germany to the outskirts of Rome. The Huns were a scourge upon the land who robbed and pillaged anyone they set upon. Their brutal reign of terror was fueled by the bold and gifted leadership of Attila, and went unchecked for many years. Eventually, however, it all came crashing down when Attila went and got himself hitched one night and was subsequently sexed to death by his new bride on the first night of the consummation of their connubial bliss.

Without Attila, the rest of the Huns were unable to make much account of themselves. No one remembers the bold exploits of Fred the Hun, or Gustav the Hun, or even that most dread of all scourges, Westley the Hun (no one would ever surrender to the Dread Hun Westley). As far as history is concerned, Hunship pretty much died with Attila.

So when George Q. Liberal calls down hellfire and damnation upon his conservative opponent by marking him "slightly to the Right of Attila", what is he really implying? That J. Rupert Conservative from Flatland is a great strategist and leader of men, but doesn't really have it in him to survive in the rigorous and stressful world of lovemaking?

Let's examine what Attilla and his followers really stood for. Forced redistribution of wealth? Seems so. Imposing stringent penalties upon "The Rich" (with a fungible definition of who qualified as "rich" from one moment to the next), at ever-increasing rates so as to make them Pay Their Fair Share? Beyond question. The Huns would often set upon whole towns and villages, slaying the menfolk and then raping the women and children to death, so I can't think that "The Right to Life" was high on their list of priorities. Attila's political leanings don't really appear so far to the Right , do they?   In reality, when you boil it all down, Attilla the Hun was about as far to the Left as you could get.

On the other hand, whenever they felt the weather was too chilly, the Huns would put entire villages to the torch, with no concern at all for the poor drowning polar bears or for the size of their carbon footprint. It's safe to say, therefore, that the Huns' great leader apparently didn't subscribe to the whole "Manmade Global Warming" myth.

I guess there may be some hope for Attila the Hun after all.