Pathos of the Plutocrat

“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me”. So wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald and he didn’t just mean that they have more money. What he meant instead, at least in part, was many of very rich expect a level of deference that the rest of us never experience and are deeply distressed when they don’t get the special treatment they consider their birthright; their wealth “makes them soft where we are hard.” And because money talks, this softness, call it pathos of plutocrats, has become a major factor in America’s political life. (Paul Krugman – NYTimes – 20/07/2012)

It’s no secret, at this point, many of America’s richest men, including some former Obama supporters, hate, just hate, President Barack Obama. Why? Well, according to them, it’s because he “demonizes” business or as Mitt Romney put it earlier this week, he “attacks success”. Listening to them, you’d think that the president was the second coming of Huey Long, preaching class hatred and need to soak the rich. Needless to say, this is crazy. In fact, Mr. Obama always bends over backward to declare his support for free enterprise and his belief that getting rich is perfectly fine. All that he has done is to suggest sometimes businesses behave badly, and this is one reason we need things like financial regulation. No matter: even this hint that sometimes rich aren’t completely praiseworthy has been enough to drive plutocrats wild. For two years or more, Wall Street in particular has been crying: “Ma! He’s looking at me funny!” Wait, there’s more. Not only do many of the superrich feel deeply aggrieved at the notion that anyone in their class might face criticism, they also insist that their perception that Mr. Obama doesn’t like them is at the root of our economic problems. Businesses aren’t investing, they say, because business leaders don’t feel valued. Romney repeated this line, too, arguing that because the president attacks success “we have less success”. This, too, is crazy (it’s disturbing Mr. Romney appears to share this delusional view about what ails our economy). There’s no mystery about reasons economic recovery has been so weak. Housing is still depressed in the aftermath of a huge bubble, and consumer demand is being held back by the high levels of household debt that are the legacy of that bubble. Business investment has actually held up fairly well given this weakness in demand. Why should businesses invest more when they don’t have enough customers to make full use of capacity they already have? But never mind. Because rich are different from you and me, many of them are incredibly self-centered. They don’t even see how funny it is, how ridiculous they look, when they attribute the weakness of a $15 trillion economy to their own hurt feelings. After all, who’s going to tell them? They’re safely ensconced in a bubble of deference and flattery. Unless, that is, they run for public office.

Like everyone else following the news, I’ve been awe-struck by the way questions about Mr. Romney’s career at Bain Capital, private-equity firm he founded, and his refusal to release tax returns have so obviously caught the Romney campaign off guard. Shouldn’t a very wealthy running for president and running specifically on premise his business success makes him qualified for office, have expected nature of that success to become an issue? Shouldn’t it have been obvious that refusing to release tax returns from before 2010 would raise all kinds of suspicions? By the way, while we don’t know what Romney is hiding in earlier returns, the fact he is still stonewalling despite calls by Republicans as well as Democrats to come clean suggests it could be something seriously damaging. Anyway, what’s now apparent is campaign was completely unprepared for the obvious questions, and it has reacted to the Obama campaign’s decision to ask those questions with a hysteria that surely must be coming from the top. Clearly, Romney believed that he could run for president while remaining safe inside the plutocratic bubble and is both shocked and angry at the discovery that the rules that apply to others also apply to people like him. Fitzgerald again, about the very rich: “They think, deep down, that they are better than we are”. O.K., let’s take a deep breath. The truth is that many, probably most, of the very rich don’t fit Fitzgerald’s description. There are plenty of very rich Americans who have a sense of perspective, who take pride in their achievements without believing that their success entitles them to live by different rules. But Mr. Mitt Romney, it seems, isn’t one of those people. And that discovery may be an even bigger issue than whatever is hidden in those tax returns he won’t release. 


Acerca de ignaciocovelo
Consultor Internacional

2 Responses to Pathos of the Plutocrat

  1. Professor Uziel Nogueira says: The forthcoming presidential election is unique in modern American history. Obama and Romney have to debate a subject previous contenders have avoid in the past i.e., clearly identify winners and losers in their future presidency. The worst economic recession in memory and uncertainty about the future obliges both candidates to address the subject. Obama has opted in favor of the 99% and plays offense and looks confident on TV. Romney has opted for the 1%, his main constituency, and is playing defense. On TV he has a sort of Tim Geithner’s spooked look during the financial crisis of 2009. The forbidden words ‘class warfare’ underlies the political debate. Thus, Romney’s wealth accumulation, Bain Capital, overseas accounts and income tax returns are targets of opportunity for Obama’s attacks. Mitt Romney’s strategists thought, naively, that class warfare would never be brought up by Obama’s team. They were wrong because Obama do whatever it takes to be reelected. Income distribution and taxing the rich are the MAIN topic during the presidential campaign.

    The question is: Will Mitt Romney be ready to debate Obama in prime time? American voters and the world are anxious to watch the political gig of 2012.

  2. (…..) It’s impossible to know what Romney is not revealing. But it is instructive to contrast him to his father, George, who was an auto executive and governor of Michigan. When George Romney ran for president in 1968, he released 12 years of income tax returns. But he was essentially salaried — his remuneration set either by statute or by a board of directors — and so really he was divulging little. Maybe more important, he actually made something (cars) or did something (governed). His son not only manufactured nothing but earned his wealth the new way — by financial manipulation, leveraging and such. On paper, it could look ugly. For Mitt Romney, there are no assembly lines, no factories or mines — just back offices and computer terminals and such esoterica as the infinitesimal difference between what the Libor rate should be and what it is. He was loyal to no company, no industry — just to his investors. The making of such money is concealed, based on the exotic manipulation of numbers and the disregard of people. Only a relatively few know how to do this sort of thing, and they don’t much like to talk about it. Romney, as we already know, is one of those people. He hides his taxes not because it would reveal anything new about him, but because it would reveal what he has always known about us: We’re suckers.


Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: