EugÃ©ne Delacroix (1798-1863), Attila suivi de ses hordes, foule aux pieds libÃ©ralisme, Marxisme, et pacifisme, BibliothÃ¨que, Palais Bourbon, Paris, 1843-47
Politifact’s Tom Kertsher goes to unusual lengths in critiquing a tongue-in-cheek campaign ad for Georgia GOP Senator Kelly Loeffler in which a constituent admiringly describes her as “more conservative than Attila the Hun.”
[T]he comparison is largely misaligned with history. Attila isnâ€™t regarded as “conservative” in the ideological sense, according to historians. If you had to peg him, youâ€™d probably say “murderer” or “plunderer.”
As the Smithsonian Magazine put it, his name is synonymous with bloody massacres and forcing “the mighty Roman Empire almost to its knees.”
Attila, known as Flagellum Dei (Latin for “Scourge of God”), was the barbarian ruler of the Hun people from 434 to 453, when he died in his sleep. As king, he ruled jointly with his elder brother Bleda for the first 11 years, before murdering him.
Attila was a “supreme king” who was, “of course, neither a conservative nor liberal by modern standards,” said Hyun Jin Kim, a professor in classics at the University of Melbourne in Australia and author of “The Huns.” “By Hunnic standards, Attila was a more or less traditional ruler.”
Now, here is a pretty darn impressive display of liberal “fact-checking” in action. Someone should send Mr. Kertsher the old French adage: Ne perdrai pas votre temps Ã enculer des mouches.