The Real One Per-Centers

Not long ago I gave a talk to some Tea Party folks. I was explaining why I think liberalism is destined for the ash heap of history. In making my case, among the things I asserted is that we humans are a hierarchical species. Always and everywhere, we rank ourselves in comparison with others.
Rick Santorum is not my choice in presidential material, but he was correct in also insisting that complete equality is not a good idea. Not only do people differ in their abilities, but also in their achievements.
The way I put it to the Tea Party is that while equality of opportunity is worth pursuing, an equality of results is unlikely. Furthermore, I do not want resources equally distributed. To the contrary, I believe people should get what they earn.
Given that I was addressing conservatives, there was wide agreement with this sentiment. My listeners also believed in personal responsibility and individual effort. Like many not blinded by liberal ideals, they understood that we owe a debt of gratitude to those who perform above the norm.
This insight has become more important with the demonization of the so-called “one per-centers.” Thanks to the Democratic decision to resort to class-warfare, the very rich have been portrayed as lazy parasites.
The image Barack Obama presents when bemoaning the refusal of the wealthy to “pay their fair share” is of smug self-entitlement. But is this the true picture? Are those at the top of the social pyramid self-satisfied plutocrats who are sucking the life-blood from the rest of us?
Well, let’s see. To this end, I consulted Forbes list of the 400 hundred richest Americans. Topping the list, with a net worth of over sixty billion dollars, is Bill Gates. What a surprise, the creative force behind Microsoft is still riding high. Just behind him is that habitual number two: Warren Buffet. The guru of Berkshire Hathaway has fallen to around forty billion, but the stock market has recently hit a few speed bumps.
After this comes Lawrence Ellison of Oracle and then several members of the Walton family. Sam’s kids are making out just fine from the proceeds of Wal-Mart. Nonetheless, the mayor of New York City is hard on their heels. Michael Bloomberg, the creator the Bloomberg news empire, is evidently unwilling to sit back and clip coupons.
Next come the Koch brothers. As Obama’s latest whipping boys, these manufacturing titans are certainly rich. Each approaches the twenty billion range. After this are the masterminds behind Google. Sergey Brin and Larry Paige are only worth about fifteen billion, but then Google is the new kid on the block
Steven Balmer and Paul Allen, who rode to the top on the Microsoft gravy train, are doing okay, if worth only slightly more than ten billion. But who is that sitting right up there in the same neighborhood? Why it is that liberal billionaire investor: George Soros. I guess he should be ashamed of the company he is keeping.
Oh yes, Michael Dell of Dell Computers is right there too with his fifteen billion. One more of these wealthy college dropouts, he did better than Steve Jobs who made the mistake of selling his Apple stock before the company rocketed to a net worth of half a trillion dollars.
What do these folks have in common? Except for the Walton’s, they all made their own fortunes. Even in their case, however, the company providing their wealth is of recent origin.
So where are the Rockefeller’s, Vanderbilt’s, Astor’s, and Kennedy’s? The only conclusion one can reach is that the one per-center’s are not what they once were. Almost all of today’s billionaires have earned their own fortunes.
Does this make them parasites? Have they hurt us in the process of getting wealthy? Or have we too benefited from their efforts?
You be the judge.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University