In a recent Money Magazine (Jan 2008) article, the financial standing of the leading presidential candidates are summarized. Here are some of the findings:
Name Net Worth
- Hillary Clinton: $34.9 millionName Net Worth
- John Edwards $54.7 million
- Barack Obama $1.3 million
-Rudy Giuliani $52.2 million
-John McCain $40.4 million
-Mitt Romney $202 million
-Fred Thompson $8.1 million
The sketch may surprise those who believe that their candidates represent them to the extent they reflect them. In 2000, G.W. Bush achieved popular support in part because people believed he would be the best invitee to a backyard BBQ despite being a multimillionaire.
Others may feel inspired by the products of our American capitalism. Through hard work and entrepreneurial savvy, many of these figures achieved remarkable wealth.
Others still may be suspicious of the vast fortunes that appear to be a prerequisite for realistic aspirations to the Presidency on grounds that financial success contributes to economic aristocracy that leaves the less well-off excluded from leadership roles.
Generally, our responses to this information are as numerous and complex as our relationship to wealth and poverty in our country. Should the general public be surprised if they knew, should they care? Does it make any difference in their leadership, positively or negatively? Is this a new issue or has it been with our democracy since its inception?
Some have written that the public shouldn't be surprised or concerned by the fact that U.S. presidents have traditionally been very wealthy, basically arguing that if it was good enough for the proverbial founding fathers then why shouldn't it be good enough for us. Others have said that no evidence of undue influence on the president or harm to the democratic process has been generated, so the concern is the product of class warfare propagandists.
But the American democracy has evolved. Originally, white male land owners were the participants in our democracy, while others were just not entrusted with the power of voting. As women and African-Americans were granted the rights of the republic, our democracy changed. It became more open and inclusive, its historical orientation around the axis of property-owner rights shifted to an orientation around civil rights and participation.
As inclusiveness has improved, the average economic status of the participants has decreased. The double effect is that first, the face of the potential voter has increasingly become the face of the middle-class laborer or the previously disenfranchised and second, the economic disparity between the elected official and the average potential voter has widened.
Also, as the American economy has grown, those of means have been increasingly able to employ economies of scale to finance their political aspirations. For the average American to develop the same economic power, they would need to be supported by vastly larger donor-supporter pool to even begin their campaign.
The upshot is the increasing cost of political campaigning at all levels and the widening economic disparity between the average American and its politicians makes national politics (if not other levels) nearly exclusively for the super-wealthy. In itself this may not be problematic, but as our economy shifts away from the manufacturing and other manual laboring toward a service-based (especially financially service-based) economy, the political class increasingly loses contact with those outside of itself.
So, on one hand America has been moved by the force democratic inclusiveness and on the other American democracy is stretched by economic stratification. In the absence of grassroots participation, democracy will migrate with the money and many will be left with the mere hope that the political-economic elite are wise and benevolent enough to protect the less fortunate. Therefore, widespread increases in grassroots democratic processes at the individual, city, state, and national political level generates a renewed representative force that limits the influence of wealth and the stratification of democratic processes. The average American can no longer afford to abdicate their civic responsibility to be an informed participant.
Others may feel inspired by the products of our American capitalism. Through hard work and entrepreneurial savvy, many of these figures achieved remarkable wealth.
Others still may be suspicious of the vast fortunes that appear to be a prerequisite for realistic aspirations to the Presidency on grounds that financial success contributes to economic aristocracy that leaves the less well-off excluded from leadership roles.
Generally, our responses to this information are as numerous and complex as our relationship to wealth and poverty in our country. Should the general public be surprised if they knew, should they care? Does it make any difference in their leadership, positively or negatively? Is this a new issue or has it been with our democracy since its inception?
Some have written that the public shouldn't be surprised or concerned by the fact that U.S. presidents have traditionally been very wealthy, basically arguing that if it was good enough for the proverbial founding fathers then why shouldn't it be good enough for us. Others have said that no evidence of undue influence on the president or harm to the democratic process has been generated, so the concern is the product of class warfare propagandists.
But the American democracy has evolved. Originally, white male land owners were the participants in our democracy, while others were just not entrusted with the power of voting. As women and African-Americans were granted the rights of the republic, our democracy changed. It became more open and inclusive, its historical orientation around the axis of property-owner rights shifted to an orientation around civil rights and participation.
As inclusiveness has improved, the average economic status of the participants has decreased. The double effect is that first, the face of the potential voter has increasingly become the face of the middle-class laborer or the previously disenfranchised and second, the economic disparity between the elected official and the average potential voter has widened.
Also, as the American economy has grown, those of means have been increasingly able to employ economies of scale to finance their political aspirations. For the average American to develop the same economic power, they would need to be supported by vastly larger donor-supporter pool to even begin their campaign.
The upshot is the increasing cost of political campaigning at all levels and the widening economic disparity between the average American and its politicians makes national politics (if not other levels) nearly exclusively for the super-wealthy. In itself this may not be problematic, but as our economy shifts away from the manufacturing and other manual laboring toward a service-based (especially financially service-based) economy, the political class increasingly loses contact with those outside of itself.
So, on one hand America has been moved by the force democratic inclusiveness and on the other American democracy is stretched by economic stratification. In the absence of grassroots participation, democracy will migrate with the money and many will be left with the mere hope that the political-economic elite are wise and benevolent enough to protect the less fortunate. Therefore, widespread increases in grassroots democratic processes at the individual, city, state, and national political level generates a renewed representative force that limits the influence of wealth and the stratification of democratic processes. The average American can no longer afford to abdicate their civic responsibility to be an informed participant.
Posts
2 comments:
Another good one. In fact, it's making me hot. kidding. sort of.
Our daughter beckons. We can finish this over some sushi?
Hi Chris! Nice article. Halfway thru I thought I was reading something in the Economist. =)
I think Barak is actually "like me." $1.3 mil is not all that much. If he and his spouse both work, save for retirement, and own a house for a few years during a prosperous time, $1.3 mil is pretty easy to obtain these days...
I'd be interested in some camapign reform that does not allow campaigning over one year before an election. Most Americans don't care about the election at that time (or ever, actually); before one year, the canidates are just trying to get their name in people's minds and the pundits just need something to talk about so they can get paid. No one discusses the issues, especially before one year. That might make it a less expensive process and then more available to the rest of us future $1.3 mil people. =)
Post a Comment