Why are some of our richest people attacking the system that helped them create their wealth?
Rather than gratitude and support for the government that has provided the foundation for the creation of their wealth, they are attacking the institutions and offices essential to the effective functioning of that government. In his final contribution, retiring New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted the extent to which optimism has been replaced by anger and resentment: “And I’m not just talking about members of the working class who feel betrayed by elites; some of the angriest, most resentful people in America right now — people who seem very likely to have a lot of influence with the incoming Trump administration — are billionaires who don’t feel sufficiently admired.”
If our constitutional democracy was a goose, many golden eggs would have been provided for those billionaires who now seek to do it harm. Elon Musk, richest man in the world, wants to avoid alarming the goose by assuring it that there may be some short-term pain, but all will be better in the long run. How can the billionaires President-elect Donald Trump has nominated for his cabinet not appreciate the likely results of their collective agenda? Unless voting has ended, great wealth will be insufficient to overcome recognition of what has happened to the goose.
Could voting be ended? Mr. Trump recently said this: “In four years, you don’t have to vote anymore. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote.”
If the Trump/Musk/ Vivek Ramaswamy fix includes the $2 trillion budget cut they are proposing, and tax cuts have been achieved as promoted, continuation in power will only be possible if they “have fixed it so good, you’re not going to have to vote.”
Discretionary spending amounts to only about $1.7 trillion, and includes agriculture, transportation, and Homeland Security. Elimination of funding for those programs would create some consequences that would not be “so good.”
Also not so good for the party in power would be increased recognition of how the distribution of wealth in this country has changed over the past 60 years. Wealth inequality is higher here than in almost any other developed country, and the time for adjustments may be near.
A cabinet and senior leadership of billionaires is unlikely to reduce wealth inequality, but it would be very likely to win recognition of its causes, its beneficiaries, and the need for change. Whether that change will happen will depend on whether voting continues to be how decisions are made.
Time will soon tell, as Krugman also concludes: “At some point the public will realize that most politicians railing against elites actually are elites in every sense that matters and start to hold them accountable for their failure to deliver on their promises. And at that point the public may be willing to listen to people who don’t try to argue from authority, don’t make false promises, but do try to tell the truth as best they can ... But if we stand up to the kakistocracy — rule by the worst — that’s emerging as we speak, we may eventually find our way back to a better world.” Rome was not built in a day, nor did it fail that fast. But fail it did, providing a history lesson worthy of mention.
•••
Keith Mobley, Dufur, is a retired lawyer who was a Republican candidate for the Oregon House of Representatives in 1980. He lost, and then served as the Antelope city attorney against the Rajneeshees until late 1982, when he was hired as assistant to the president of Oregon State University.
Commented
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.