Surprise, surprise! Mitt Romney is rich! His tax returns reveal that he is a multi-millionaire who is still deriving tens of millions of dollars annually from his investments. Did anyone think otherwise? So why the outrage? Shouldn’t a man who advertises himself as a successful businessperson have the income to prove it?
Nor would he be alone in his wealth if he makes it to being president. George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy all got there before him. But of these, Romney is the only one who made his own money.
I came of age under the assumption that almost anyone could become rich in America. This is not quite true, but the opportunities for upward social mobility are real and substantial. In fact, a large proportion of our wealthiest citizens have made their own fortunes—including Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
I also grew up believing that Americans did not begrudge successful people their achievements. Whereas envy was widespread in other nations, in ours most people hoped to join this elite. Having bought into the American Dream, they assumed that their own actions could lift them above the station into which they were born.
But now class warfare is abroad in the land. Largely thanks to the efforts of Democratic politicians and media pundits, millions of people believe they are being cheated if others do better than themselves. They do not seem to realize that Jobs’ success benefited them; i.e., that had he not brought I-pods, I-phones, and I-pads to market, they would have been less well-off.
Bain Capital has become a bugaboo, but I wonder if the folks working for Staples would agree? Yes, Romney has grown rich, but they too have money in their pockets they might not have had. The same applies to police officers whose pension funds were invested with Bain. They too profited from Romney’s business acumen.
Nevertheless, let me change the subject to riches per se. And let me start here by admitting that I am not rich. As a college professor, I receive a modest income. Given the iniquities of the system, this is probably less than I deserve—but I am not complaining.
How could I in light of the fact that I voluntarily chose my profession? My brother, who is a lawyer, makes several times what I do; hence I—perhaps vainly—assume that had I chosen a different career path I might have done better in monetary terms.
But I made the choice I did—and I would make it again. My eyes were not closed to the economic implications of becoming an academic. I decided to do what I loved, irrespective of the financial consequences. So far as I am concerned, there are other ways to achieve personal satisfaction than having the largest bank account in the neighborhood.
In fact, I never wanted to be rich. The Prius I drive suits me better than a chauffer-driven limousine. And the food that I eat, given that I am a good cook and there are many fine restaurants in north Georgia, is the sort of fare I desire.
So why would I envy Mitt Romney? What does he have, which I do not, that would make my life less burdensome?
Is it his big house? I don’t think so. A bigger dwelling would be too difficult to navigate. Is it his live-in a cook? No, once again I am happy with the status quo. Indeed, I would miss my homemade chicken paprikash.
Being wealthy does not imply a great leap in personal comfort. I, for instance, would resent having a valet lay out my clothing. Likewise, battalions of servants would be a nuisance that interfered with my spontaneity. So why would I want them?
Better yet, why do so many others resent the fact that relatively small numbers of people do have them? Furthermore, is this a reason to insist that we tax them down to our level? Does it really make sense to deprive them of the means to invest in new jobs?
As importantly, would it be to our advantage to deny the presidency to a person who could lead us out of a recession—just because he is rich?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment