This morning Paul Krugman enlists F. Scott Fitzgerald's familiar assessments of the plutocratic class. "They are different from you and me"--Fitzgerald's gold standard of literary psychology--and "They think, deep down, that they are better than we are" dovetail with Krugman's portrayal of an out-of-touch stratum that is also "incredibly self-centered," "ridiculous," and "safely ensconced in a bubble of deference and flattery."
Krugman's intent, of course, is to get at Mitt Romney, who is not only ridiculously self-centered, but spousally convinced that "you people" have been enlightened enough as far as Mitt's noblesse oblige is concerned, so you should, in turn, just cease your uncouth questions and stop your unrefined yapping. In a mere two words, the missus said more about the Mittean mentality than even the royally oafish candidate himself ever could.
But back to Krugman's umbrella theme--that of Mitt's insufferable social class itself. Here, or so it seems to me, we should take our interpretations less from the flamboyant zeitgeist of the Jazz Age--that is, Fitzgerald's assessments--than from the contemporaneous dread of the post-Great War's 'Red Scare,' whose reactionary absurdities unmasked the plutocracy's perpetual paranoia of being somehow corralled and subdued by us people, the rabble.
This alternative assessment comes, irresistibly, from Mencken, 1920.
Imagine a horde of peasants incredibly enriched and with almost infinite power thrust into their hands, and you will have a fair picture of [the plutocracy's] habitual state of mind. It shows all the stigmata of inferiority--moral certainty, cruelty, suspicion of ideas, fear. Never did it function more revealingly than in the late pogrom against the so-called Reds, i.e., against humorless idealists who, like Andrew Jackson, took the platitudes of democracy quite seriously.
Fear. Plain, unmitigated, endless fear. Those without any toys may take one of the plutocracy's thousands, so the latter's natural reaction is to overreact; to sit the throng down harshly; to wag its finger at the vulgar and unknowing; to reinstall the right people in high office--the right, good people who know better than you and me, per recent Hamptonian yelps.
Never met a rich guy yet who didn't think the sole appropriate role of government was to protect his particular pile of lucre.
Posted by: Peter G | July 20, 2012 at 08:36 AM
I am glad you used the term "social class" rather than "economic class".
I know several people who financially belong in the top 1% but you would never know it by their actions or demeanor. These are folks that did create their own success by the sweat of their brows, but have always recognized that they couldn't have done it alone. To them, their success is somewhat of a gift and they would never in a million years express anything that would show the slightest hint that they are somehow "superior" to the rest of us.
I have found the attitude you write about to be most prevelant among two groups of peopel. Those who either inherited their wealth, or at least enough to get a good foot up on the rest of us and feel a definite sense of entitlement. To them, the mere fact they have this wealth shows they are superior and no one had ever try to tale anything away from them.
The other group is not part of nor even close to the 1%. But therse are the ones, with the assist of the Republican Party, who believe they shoudl be and would be if it weren't for "those peopel" who obviously have deprived them (often through things like affirmative action) of the opportunity. These people all vote Republican.
Posted by: japa21 | July 20, 2012 at 09:15 AM
Interesting observations Japa. And I concur with them. I know theoretically that there are people of wealth who do not conform to my initial observation. I have even seen and heard them speak. Who could overlook a man such as FDR? And yet they must be quite rare because I have never personally met such a man barring a brief handshake with Pierre Trudeau. I've met quite a few wealthy men though and they almost always view any lesser mortal with suspicion.
Posted by: Peter G | July 20, 2012 at 09:42 AM
I have been fortuante to know some, including my own brother-in-law. He sees himself as a Republican but is in favor of having his taxes raised to be able to assist others, for example. And he is extremekly turned off by the current state of the party.
Posted by: japa21 | July 20, 2012 at 10:31 AM
I imagine European aristocrats wincing at the shenanigans of the American nouveau riche. I suspect one of the criteria for evolving from new money to old money is to avoid rubbing everyone's noses in it.
Posted by: Robert Lipscomb | July 20, 2012 at 11:23 AM
The late Senator Teddy Kennedy belonged to the 1%, yet he always championed causes for the poor and working classes. Every time I hear President Obama speak about the need for why those who are well off should pay a little more taxes he always includes himself. He also reminds people that he wants to go back to the Bill Clinton tax rates for the wealthy. I've yet to see wealthy people make plausible argument that the rates they paid under Clinton were so oppressive, and denied them freedom. I suppose they can't do that because under Clinton the country created record numbers of jobs, created new millionaires and multi-millionaires and eventually a federal budget surplus.
How can the billionaires and multimillionaires who thrived under Bill Clinton's tax rates be all of a sudden against President Obama who is simply calling for the return to those rates? I think there might be a deeper reason why the rich don't want to see President Obama succeed
Posted by: nk007 | July 21, 2012 at 03:59 AM