This is an important article about our society today. It is titled “The Revolt of the Rich.” It is especially interesting that it appears in a conservative magazine. The author, Michael Lofgren, was a long-time Republican (now independent); his new book is called The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. Read Bill Moyers’ interview with him here.
There is an apocryphal exchange between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway in which Fitzgerald allegedly said, “The rich are different from us,” and Hemingway allegedly answered, “Yes, they have more money.”
The article linked here says the super-rich are indeed different from the rest of us. They have no sense of place. As the article begins, the thesis unfolds:
It was 1993, during congressional debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement. I was having lunch with a staffer for one of the rare Republican congressmen who opposed the policy of so-called free trade. To this day, I remember something my colleague said: “The rich elites of this country have far more in common with their counterparts in London, Paris, and Tokyo than with their fellow American citizens.”
That was only the beginning of the period when the realities of outsourced manufacturing, financialization of the economy, and growing income disparity started to seep into the public consciousness, so at the time it seemed like a striking and novel statement.
The author worries that the people who have disproportionate power in this country don’t care about anyone but themselves:
Our plutocracy now lives like the British in colonial India: in the place and ruling it, but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; if one owns a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension—and viable public transportation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen. With private doctors on call and a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?
The super-rich, he says, have seceded from America. They have no regard for our public institutions. They are disconnected from the lives of ordinary people. They don’t even have a sense of noblesse oblige. This explains their contempt for public schools attended by other people’s children:
To some degree the rich have always secluded themselves from the gaze of the common herd; their habit for centuries has been to send their offspring to private schools. But now this habit is exacerbated by the plutocracy’s palpable animosity towards public education and public educators, as Michael Bloomberg has demonstrated. To the extent public education “reform” is popular among billionaires and their tax-exempt foundations, one suspects it is as a lever to divert the more than $500 billion dollars in annual federal, state, and local education funding into private hands—meaning themselves and their friends. What Halliburton did for U.S. Army logistics, school privatizers will do for public education.
What is so astonishing these days is that the super-rich–call them not the 1% but the 1% of the 1%–have control of a large part of the mainstream media. They can afford to take out television advertising, even though their views are echoed on the news and opinion programs. And the American public, or a large part of it, is persuaded to vote against its own self-interest. A friend told me the other day that his brother, who barely subsists on social security, was worried that Obama might raise taxes on people making over $250,000. How can you explain his concern about raising taxes on those who can most afford it?
People like Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Walton Family, and Michael Bloomberg have a disproportionate influence on our national politics. They have only one vote. But their money enables them to control the instruments of power and persuasion. Their money gives them a voice larger than anyone else’s. Governors, Senators, presidential candidates come calling, hoping to please them and win their support.
This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
A friend told me the other day that his brother, who barely subsists on social security, was worried that Obama might raise taxes on people making over $250,000. How can you explain his concern about raising taxes on those who can most afford it?
Two answers: Your friend’s brother has fallen prey to the lottery syndrome. He believes that someday he may win the lottery— literal or figurative— and be part of that group who earns more than $250,000. And your friend’s brother has also fallen prey to the Reagan Canard: that government is the problem and ANY money you give to the government is wasted on things like welfare queens in Cadillacs.
Until we are willing to pay taxes for things our neighbors support but we disdain (for me that would be any war machines) we can always find an excuse for not paying our share.
“(for me that would be any war machines)” Second that! Only us peons don’t have the option of off shoring our money so as to not pay any taxes like the uber rich.
My husband has picked up and uses this quote from I don’t know where. Since I don’t know the original context or phrasing, I’ll do my best not to mangle it too badly. Anyway,to account for our seeming willingness to march off the cliff like a herd of lemmings, it says that Americans believe that they are all temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Yes, a majority of the Overclass has convinced itself that they can continue to extract the accumulated wealth of generations with impunity, while remaining safe behind militarized law enforcement and private security forces, in their gated communities, hyper-policed gentrified neighborhoods or space pods.
Needless to say, they are wrong.
Below is a link to a talk by Robert Johnson, who was a former staff economist for the Senate Banking Committee. It’s very short, and his metaphor for where we are right now is spot-on:
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2012/09/robert-johnson-unmasking-wall-street.html
Noblesse oblige is an antique notion. The uber-wealthy all seem to hate unions and the middle class. Are there any exceptions?
Warren Buffett? Of course, he’s ill now.
I think we need to focus not only on super rich individuals, but also unregulated corporate power. In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court held that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals. We can see the disastrous consequences of this decision in the current presidential campaign. Super pacs with undisclosed donors are pouring millions into local, state, and federal races. One concern on this blog — and rightfully so — has been corporate for-profit efforts to privatize public education. I believe we must also focus on corporate for-profit efforts to unduly influence our democracy. The stakes are very high. I say this not to simply bemoan our situation. We must keep working and fighting for what we believe. By the way, Dr. Ravitch, thank you for reporting your Action Guide. That’s the key word: action.
I meant “reposting” your Action Guide.
I will repost it periodically. If we don’t make our voices heard, we will lose public education.
Dear Diane
Though you would be interested in Marianne Williamson’s new website: http://www.sistergiant.com. Child poverty is one of the three issues she is attacking and she links to Marian Wright Edelman’s article, “The State of America’s Children 2012” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/the-state-of-americas-chi_b_1738235.html. – a must read.
Cheers, Elizabeth Rose
Author “Yo Miz… In which a perfectly adequate teacher is exiled from her home school and sent to 25 NYC public high schools in one wacky year..” (working title – publication 2012) http://www.elizabethrosemusic.com
This makes me think of Charles Dickens. If only our elected officials had his social conscience.
Did you hear Romney’s comments?
Borrow money from your parents so you can go to school or start a business.
Knock knock knock HELLO! The parents DON’T have the money to loan GENIUS!
OH I forgot, the rich people’s parents have money.
You poor people don’t need education or money. ha ha ha
I guess we will follow the urban myth of basing our prison growth on student test scores because the poor won’t be going to school or opening any businesses under Romney’s plan.
Basic survival, fight or flight, no money, no home, no food….let me think … die or take it? Apparently Romney’s education in wealthy land did not include this science lesson of animal survival behavior.