“The rich are not like the rest of us”

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger

gold-dollar-signOne of America’s greatest novels in my opinion is “The Great Gatsby” and I think many literary critics feel the same. If you’re not familiar with it, the short synopsis is that it is the tale of Jay Gatsby, a mysterious figure of self made wealth who arrives on Long Island’s North Shore, known as the “Gold Coast”, back in the “Roaring Twenties”. His life intertwines with Tom and Daisy Buchanan, a “golden” young couple with inherited wealth and the best social pedigrees. The interplay between these three leads to ultimate tragedy for Gatsby and more than a few other characters swept into the social vortex surrounding the Buchanan’s. On the last page of this magnificently crafted book, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the narrator Nick runs into Tom and Daisy who are gaily embarking on a trip to Europe after some cataclysmic events of their causing and he says of them:

“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

Now lest you think I’m about to deliver a polemic about all wealthy people let me disabuse you of that notion. I know and have known many wealthy people who were also exemplary human beings and have my respect and affection. “The Rich” I refer to are people like the Koch Brothers who were born into great wealth and somehow believe they are among the anointed of the world. So strong is that belief that they are willing to do just about anything to maintain their power in this world and their anger at those who oppose them is the “righteous” anger of the permanently entitled. These groups of people generally have fortunes beginning in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Mitt Romney perhaps, and are far removed from the merely wealthy. The see themselves as Aristocrats of the world and in reality they would like to return us to the time of feudalism. In some respects we have returned, when we think of our Justice Department refusing to criminally prosecute banks like HSBC, which has admitted to partaking in clearly illegal activities. The germ for this guest blog came from a link supplied by one of our most prolific commenters. What it shows, I think with great effectiveness, is how the Rich are not like the rest of us and why they need to be stopped before they will destroy us and our country with it.

The article that set me off was linked by a long time regular here and part time defender of Ayn Rand, our own contributor Bron. It comes from an article written in the American Conservative Magazine and is titled: “Revolt of the Rich” by Mike Lofgren. Many Americans are taken in by the political memes generated pitting “liberals” against “conservatives” and by the stereotypes of each position handed down to us via the Mainstream Media. Much of today’s insanity in Washington arose with the election of Ronald Reagan, who ironically would be a Republican moderate, afraid of a primary challenge, in today’s skewed political spectrum. When Reagan won in 1980, his success frightened many of the Democratic Politicians to such an extent that the Right Wing of the Democratic Party assumed control of its “center stage” and there was a rush by many career Democratic politicians to begin to act like moderate Republicans. Then the wise men Democratic Party’s being emulated became Senators Daniel Moynihan, Harry Byrd and Jay Rockefeller. Byrd had been a “Dixiecrat”, Moynihan had worked loyally for Nixon and Jay Rockefeller…..was a Rockefeller. As the Democratic Party rushed to become Republican “Lite” its minions began to recognize that they could gain even more largesse from the Corporate Plutocrats as they moderated their ideals. The truth about politics is that “ideals” in most instances play a secondary role to personal gain and the pleasures of power. This shift “rightward” has proceeded apace for some thirty-two years. Even Democratic Presidential victories have brought us two Centrist two-term Presidents. While I admit I voted for each twice, it was definitely votes for what I saw as the lesser of two evils.

With the political shift rightward and with the infestation of the urgent need to raise massive amounts of cash in order to stay in office, our political leaders have become increasingly beholden to those who are the wealthiest among us. Indeed the evidence shows that the top .01 percent has separated itself from the rest of to such a great degree that to be a millionaire is to be middle class. To be “middle class” is to exist two, or three missed paychecks away from poverty. Even the small business people, who used to be the backbone of this country, are being squeezed by large corporations like Wal-Mart, who are not satisfied with the lion’s share of the market, but want it all.

Most Americans took pride in the Corporate might developed by this country and felt respect for those “Captains of Industry” who had risen to such wealth. This changed for awhile when the “Great Depression” of 1929 ravaged the country and the blinders were lifted off a majority of the people, allowing them to see that the Depression was the fault of these avaricious Plutocrats manipulating our system. As the generation of the Depression aged, those memories of the “hard times” remained vivid. Those memories were passed onto the next generation, of which I was a part. As the years passed though, the memory of the experiences of the “Great Depression” grew dim. Television became the dominant media and Television was always a carefully controlled expression of the views of the Corporations who owned it and the Corporate sponsors that supported it. The Cold War was used to scare our country and pouring half of our national income into the military was not allowed to be questioned, lest one be branded as a traitor. The tables have turned now and it seems that there really are people who could easily be labeled as traitors to this country, only these traitors aren’t some mangy radicals, but those who are the wealthiest and most powerful among us. “Revolt of the Rich” by Mike Lofgren examines this phenomenon:

“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.” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/

Lofgren goes on to talk about the fact that at the end of the Cold War, many saw the coming decline of the Nation State as many areas would devolve into smaller units representing ethnic, religious and racial ties. Then too he says there were alternate theories that saw the large military powers helpless in the face of local unrest, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. What wasn’t discussed or foreseen was this:

“There have been numerous books about globalization and how it would eliminate borders. But I am unaware of a well-developed theory from that time about how the super-rich and the corporations they run would secede from the nation state.

I do not mean secession by physical withdrawal from the territory of the state, although that happens from time to time—for example, Erik Prince, who was born into a fortune, is related to the even bigger Amway fortune, and made yet another fortune as CEO of the mercenary-for-hire firm Blackwater, moved his company (renamed Xe) to the United Arab Emirates in 2011. What I mean by secession is a withdrawal into enclaves, an internal immigration, whereby the rich disconnect themselves from the civic life of the nation and from any concern about its well being except as a place to extract loot.”

Lofgren goes on to describe how the super wealthy see themselves above it all even while they may live among us in a vague geographical manner. Anyone who has gone to places that are known haunts of the rich and “fabulous” knows how the gated communities and the private beaches, keep us riffraff far away from the natural treasures of these “spa” areas had that originally drawn people on vacation. Even in Las Vegas, that most “egalitarian” of Cities (if you have the cash), you are precluded from seeing the really wealthy gamble, or amuse 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?

Being in the country but not of it is what gives the contemporary American super-rich their quality of being abstracted and clueless. Perhaps that explains why Mitt Romney’s regular-guy anecdotes always seem a bit strained. I discussed this with a radio host who recounted a story about Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury as well as an executive at Goldman Sachs and CitiGroup. Rubin was being chauffeured through Manhattan to reach some event whose attendees consisted of the Great and the Good such as himself. Along the way he encountered a traffic jam, and on arriving to his event—late—he complained to a city functionary with the power to look into it. “Where was the jam?” asked the functionary. Rubin, who had lived most of his life in Manhattan, a place of east-west numbered streets and north-south avenues, couldn’t tell him. The super-rich who determine our political arrangements apparently inhabit another, more refined dimension.”

Lofgren goes on to discuss how in the past some of this was also true, but he then illustrates using the examples of public education and the military, to differentiate the alienation from our nation felt by the super-rich:

“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. A century ago, at least we got some attractive public libraries out of Andrew Carnegie. Noblesse oblige like Carnegie’s is presently lacking among our seceding plutocracy.

In both world wars, even a Harvard man or a New York socialite might know the weight of an army pack. Now the military is for suckers from the laboring classes whose sub-prime mortgages you just sliced into CDOs and sold to gullible investors in order to buy your second Bentley or rustle up the cash to get Rod Stewart to perform at your birthday party. The sentiment among the super-rich towards the rest of America is often one of contempt rather than noblesse.

Stephen Schwarzman, the hedge fund billionaire CEO of the Blackstone Group who hired Rod Stewart for his $5-million birthday party, believes it is the rabble who are socially irresponsible. Speaking about low-income citizens who pay no income tax, he says: “You have to have skin in the game. I’m not saying how much people should do. But we should all be part of the system.”

But millions of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes do pay federal payroll taxes. These taxes are regressive, and the dirty little secret is that over the last several decades they have made up a greater and greater share of federal revenues. In 1950, payroll and other federal retirement contributions constituted 10.9 percent of all federal revenues. By 2007, the last “normal” economic year before federal revenues began falling, they made up 33.9 percent. By contrast, corporate income taxes were 26.4 percent of federal revenues in 1950. By 2007 they had fallen to 14.4 percent. So who has skin in the game?”

Honestly, I found the entirety of this article absolutely stunning in its comprehension and comprehensiveness. This is so much more impressive because it is written by a man with impeccable conservative credentials, who was a Republican Congressional staffer among other things. There is so rich a detailing of what has become of most elected Republicans and Conservatives in this country as they became handmaidens to the Plutocratic Elite. This Elite as a group no longer feels connected to the citizens of this country and indeed views them as hindrances, product consumers and/or chattel. Please follow the link above and read the entire article, because wherever you stand on the political spectrum, I think you will find it lays out quite a powerful argument that the Plutocrats are in fact no longer a part, or part of, what we like to think is the American Dream. I will leave you with this:

“This raises disturbing questions for those who call themselves conservatives. Almost all conservatives who care to vote congregate in the Republican Party. But Republican ideology celebrates outsourcing, globalization, and takeovers as the glorious fruits of capitalism’s “creative destruction.” As a former Republican congressional staff member, I saw for myself how GOP proponents of globalized vulture capitalism, such as Grover Norquist, Dick Armey, Phil Gramm, and Lawrence Kudlow, extolled the offshoring and financialization process as an unalloyed benefit. They were quick to denounce as socialism any attempt to mitigate its impact on society. Yet their ideology is nothing more than an upside-down utopianism, an absolutist twin of Marxism. If millions of people’s interests get damaged in the process of implementing their ideology, it is a necessary outcome of scientific laws of economics that must never be tampered with, just as Lenin believed that his version of materialist laws were final and inexorable.

If a morally acceptable American conservatism is ever to extricate itself from a pseudo-scientific inverted Marxist economic theory, it must grasp that order, tradition, and stability are not coterminous with an uncritical worship of the Almighty Dollar, nor with obeisance to the demands of the wealthy. Conservatives need to think about the world they want: do they really desire a social Darwinist dystopia?

The objective of the predatory super-rich and their political handmaidens is to discredit and destroy the traditional nation state and auction its resources to themselves. Those super-rich, in turn, aim to create a “tollbooth” economy, whereby more and more of our highways, bridges, libraries, parks, and beaches are possessed by private oligarchs who will extract a toll from the rest of us. Was this the vision of the Founders? Was this why they believed governments were instituted among men—that the very sinews of the state should be possessed by the wealthy in the same manner that kingdoms of the Old World were the personal property of the monarch?”

Despite my protestations to the contrary, many here through the years have seen me as a raging “Liberal”. I don’t believe that specific economic, political or philosophical theory has all the answers.

My ideals as such only call for a free society that has eliminated poverty and want. I want a society where people are not barred from reaching their utmost potential. Where people can believe, speak and act with freedom from fear of repression, or retribution. In reading Mike Lofgren’s detailed analysis, I find my views are quite close to his. Perhaps in the way he seems to see it,  I’m his kind of “true Conservative” after all. I do believe in a market economy, but I also believe that government should have oversight of the “Market” to ensure that it is not co-opted by those who would rig the game. Government is also responsible for infrastructure and protecting us from those who would exploit us by selling inferior and harmful products. Government should handle public education, not “for profit” corporations, or “non-profit” foundations set up by billionaires who are subtly pushing their product and their mindset. Finally Government should be responsible for ensuring the public welfare and ensure that the people have adequate food, shelter and income, so that we don’t have a society where homeless people, many of them military veterans, are left to languish unaided. What do you think? Are these “radical” ideas deviating from our Constitution, or merely a modernization of the Conservative intent of our nation’s Founding Fathers?

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger












106 thoughts on ““The rich are not like the rest of us””

  1. Nice post. I had been examining consistently this blog that i’m influenced! Very useful information and facts especially the final part 🙂 We preserve such information a good deal. I became trying to get this specified information and facts for a long period. Many thanks and finest of success.

  2. I know this website gives quality depending articles or reviews and
    additional material, is there any other web site which provides these
    things in quality?

  3. Mike S.:

    I just now got around to reading your excellent post. It is almost casually terrifying, and timely. Eric Holder’s comments a couple of days on the problem of “too big to jail” ties in nicely with your topic. Those who occupy the top of the wealth pyramid become sovereign person-states, virtually untouchable by the law and without allegiance to anything beyond economic alliances.

  4. Koch Industries Warns 45,000 Employees Of ‘Consequences’ If They Don’t Vote For Republicans

    By Rebecca Leber on Oct 15, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Charles and David Koch

    The Koch brothers’ $60 million pledge to defeat President Obama — along with their political network’s $400 million spending — make them two of the most influential conservatives this election.

    Not content with their unprecedented influence in politics, the Kochs have also taken to influencing the votes of their employees. According to In These Times, Koch Industries sent 45,000 mailers to employees at Koch subsidiary Georgia Pacific, urging votes for Romney and other conservative candidates. The letter warns ominously of “consequences” for the workers if Republicans lose.

    The Koch mailer is one of several recent examples of executives warning that employees may lose their jobs if Republicans do not win in November. Here is an excerpt of the letter:

    While we are typically told before each Presidential election that it is important and historic, I believe the upcoming election will determine what kind of America future generations will inherit.

    If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills. bron, It looks like they have around 50,000 employees including contractors.

  5. smom:

    we could also run the government for about 1.5 years and then poof no more jobs. So 5+ trillion dollars doesnt do much at all in the long run.

    You can say what you want about the Kochs but how many jobs do you think their company supports? Not direct employment but indirect employment.

  6. tricksy:

    I dont agree with Alinsky’s economics but he made some necessary changes in Chicago. The idea that blacks were only fit to be janitors at Marshall Field was outrageous and Alinsky changed that and more power to him for doing so.

    Had it not been for people like Alinsky, we might not have had people like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Ben Carson in the public arena championing their ideas. And what a poverty that would be.

    And as far as working when your husband was 12, big fluking deal, most people over 50 worked odd jobs and cut grass, washed dishes, caddied, shoveled snow, flipped hamburgers during the summer and after school. And it was extra income the parents did not have to provide to the child.

    1. Tricksy,

      My maternal Grandfather came to the U.S. at age 11, alone. He began in the linen trade on the lower East Side of Manhattan and became a success, fathering nine children in the process. So what? The fact that necessity forces some children to have to fend for themselves early doesn’t mean that an abridged childhood doesn’t leave scars. My grandfather was a rather difficult person to be with and a harsh parent. He ruled his children through fear, which is excusable given that his own childhood was nasty and abrupt. He died a relatively wealthy man, but his angry temperament lost customers and kept his business from what it could have been. One of the characteristics that scientists attribute towards making humanity rise to the top of the food chain was an extended childhood that allowed children to mature under more benign conditions than most mammals. I would not cast aspersions on Soros for what he did at 13 and 14, under those wretched conditions.

      As for Sol Alinsky, I think you should learn a little more about the man: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/28/who-in-hell-is-saul-alinsky/

      Finally, it is your choice whether you want to leave or stay. I must say that those who disagreed with you did so civilly and brought their facts refuting you. That is what discussion is about and you would then refute theirs in turn if you can. Otherwise, without an interchange of points of view, all we would be doing is in effect yelling out our opinions, while keeping our hands firmly against our ears, refusing to hear other viewpoints. This unfortunately is what passes for debate today on TV and its result has not been good.

  7. Bron,
    Some users wander in here from other blogs and think they can toss out a few unsupported claims without being challenged. When they are challenged, they resort to the tactics of the childish and intellectually lazy. They end up making a few seventh grade type comments, then pick up their marbles and leave in a huff. Cannot seem to wrap their head around being asked to defend their position by actually, you know, doing some cognitive heavy lifting.

    Another thing, most of these types seem to not grasp the simple principle that people can disagree without being disagreeable. Friends can get away with teasing and it not coming across as an insult. Way too many people never master that social skill.

  8. tricksy:

    I have seen Alinsky tactics used here but not on you. All anyone has asked you to do is support your position. You have failed to do so. I do not like George Soros and would love to spread a truth about him being a Nazi thug, it would be great but there isnt enough evidence to convict him of that crime.

    I have asked you to provide information and you say google it, so I did and I found the “evidence” on a website which was against Soros.

    There are many things Soros can be criticized for but not that.

    And by the way, you should read Alinsky, he had some wonderful ways of getting people to change. Having blacks shop at Marshal Field and then return all of the merchandise was a classic as was having a restroom sit in at O’Hare duing peak times.

  9. This is just part of a movie named Der Untergang. The scene is Berlin just as the Russians are advancing. It is a good representation of youthfull innocence about to be lost.

  10. Pretty much every boy 14 and older in Germany back then was required to be enrolled in the Hitler Youth. Not much of a choice there given the consequences.

    “We’re taking volunteers..you, you and you.”

  11. Tricksy,
    If you really believe in what you are writing about, don’t let us stop you from expressing your view. We may not like it or think it is unsupported, but calling them Alinsky tactics is way off base.

  12. Tricksy,
    First of all, the Otteray is a place. You may think you are being somehow cute, but instead your pettiness is showing. It is a Cherokee word. Want to explain to the descendants of the survivors of the Trail of Tears how their language is something to make juvenile jokes about?

    Point the second. The brain is the organ that controls all thought, emotion and behavior. The brain of a child is not fully developed, which is why we have laws to protect children. A child of 13 in 1944 was no different in emotional and maturity development then than now.

    Point the third. How would you like to be held responsible at your present age for the actions of the people you lived with when you were a kid? Not yourself, but the people you were living with at the time? Consider you were staying with a family not even your own as a matter of survival, not knowing when the Gestapo would come knocking as they did for hundreds of thousands of other families. Ask yourself, what would you do to keep from being sent on a one way trip to a concentration camp?


    How about demonstrating some maturity in ability to carry on a logical and mature discussion instead of name calling and demagoguery. This is a law blog, not Junior High School.

  13. Tricksy,
    Human biology and anatomy has not evolved THAT much in seventy years. The brain is not fully developed at age 13. That is why we have juvenile courts. Keep talking. You have now established that your knowledge of anatomy and human development is on a par with your knowledge of what it was like to live under Nazi occupation in 1944. That is to say, virtually none.

    1. Otterly, your world is different from mine. I said nothing about the brain, but I speak from life experience. My father and his siblings were working before age 12 to help support their family, poor country bumpkins. My husband’s father was on his own at age 9 when he crossed the river to enter Iran to escape the Bolshevick revolution. If you look at history you will find this not uncommon.

      It may please you to know this will be my last post.
      The Alinsky tactics are unpleasant, tactics you would condemn in others, and their is no value on open exchange of ideas.

      You are content to pat one another on the back like good ole’ boys.
      I expected more from the blog of someone of Mr. Turley’s stature.
      Thanks for the experience.

Comments are closed.