[PJ] America's historical relationship with its super-rich has alternated between admiration and resentment. Americans have traditionally loved a rags-to-riches story, as the cultural mythos, from Horatio Alger novels in the 19th century to modern-day profiles of self-made tech founders, celebrates upward mobility as proof that the economic system works.
Yet, that same public harbors an ingrained suspicion of inherited wealth or fortunes built through market manipulation, viewing unearned privilege as fundamentally un-American.
"Trust fund babies" are often despised, especially if the kid shows an arrogance of privilege that puts him above the law, as was the case with the Kennedys. But ambivalence toward massive wealth also reflects a healthy skepticism about money's corrupting power and its inherently anti-democratic nature.
We have never been an egalitarian people, although we worship at the altar of equality. We talk a good game about creating a "level playing field" for all, but we honor that idea in the breach. In fact, we've never been able to reconcile our notions of individual liberty with a broad definition of "equality for all." To create that kind of society, a powerful arbiter must broker a compromise that inevitably destroys both: liberty is choked by regulation, and true equality is undermined by the very arbiter granting it.
We've only been at it for 250 years. We'll get there eventually.
# id) ?>
|
