I don’t think Gwyneth Paltrow is an outrageously good actress, and the pink dress she wore to accept her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love was the wrong color for her complexion, and ill-fitting (you know it is bad when so many people pretend to love it).
Paltrow’s politics are inane, which is to be expected of an extremely sheltered, privigleged white woman who was privately schooled (Spence, natch) and grew up in Manhattan with servants of color. It is her right to spend money on it. And it is in keeping with elites to pine for a monarchy of the elite, because they really don’t, of course, believe in equality.
But I also wonder if the sort of monarchy Paltrow proposes for Barack Obama is the sort of monarchy that neo-paleo-monarchist-conservative Brett Stevens approves of, because this is what a monarchy can lead to. (I like Brett but have some disagreements with some of his views – I don’t think feudalism is a good way to go for most people.) Plus, you might not get your favorite royalty. Indeed, many Disingenuous White Progressive Elites promote monarchy – Woody Allen, for instance, thought Obama should take a monarchy to one of its various end points, dictator. Is that what you have in mind Brett?
I do, however, enjoy the cat fight between Paltrow and Martha Stewart. It’s so good to see Disingenuous Progressive Women keeping’ sisterhood real – you know, working together and collectively for the betterment of each other.