Much has been made of the personal wealth of some of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates, both those still in the race and a few who got out in previous months. Almost no candidate in recent memory in either party has come from truly humble beginnings. And those who did found financial security, if not wealth, early in life. (Link to a brief but fascinating synopsis of all U.S. Presidents' financial fortunes and misfortunes here.)
The original crop of Republican primary candidates had a few millionaires, which has helped sustain the droning mantra of the left concerning the GOP being concerned only for "protecting the rich." John Huntsman, for whom money was no object at a broadly estimated $16 - 70 million net worth, needed more than money to attract voters. Herman Cain, a successful businessman with a fortune between $2 and 6 million, rode a wave of popularity until his campaign was sidetracked by accusations of improper conduct. Michele Bachman's personal wealth of $1 - 3 million also puts her in the Millionaire's Club. But those three left the field, so it's of no significance.
Of the remaining Republicans, personal wealth spans from the very rich to the barely rich. Current estimates of the candidates' net worth are as follows:
Mitt Romney $200 million
Newt Gingrich $6 - 30 million
Ron Paul $2 - 5 million
Rick Santorum $0.5 - 2 million
For the record, President Obama's current net worth is estimated at $2 - 11 million, of which most derives from royalties earned from the sale of his books.
As a rule, presidential candidates are not from the "middle class" as measured by income. And neither political party can claim to put forward candidates of average means. The list of the ten wealthiest presidential candidates is comprised of 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans. An independent, Ross Perot, actually came in at the top spot with a net worth of $3.5 billion. All the way down at number 10, former senator John Edwards rounds out the list with an estimated $45 million, although he still has some legal matters pending which may negatively impact that figure.
So what does all this have to do with the voters? Considering that the POTUS has not been elected from the lower rungs of the financial strata for several decades, not much. We, the electorate, can only elect those who choose to run for public office and have the financial resources to stay in the campaign long enough to garner votes. If we deem it important to vote for someone who understands us, understands our challenges, our dreams, our fears, we may not get that opportunity, because people of modest means usually cannot afford to run for public office.
But someone has to do it. For many participants, the deciding factor is the level of sacrifice involved. The time and energy required, the financial and organizational resources needed, and the unrelenting scrutiny from the public and the media make the life of the public servant unattractive to all but the most dedicated of campaigners. I'd venture to say that only the most power-hungry and the most service-driven see their political aspirations through to fruition. For many, politics is a calling - an inescapable tug of the conscience to employ their talents and abilities for the greater good of their community or country. For others, politics is a gateway to power and influence. For some, both motivations play a role in their ambitions.
But is the fact of being rich necessarily a bad thing in a candidate? Well, since we've established that very few poor people can or do run for office, it would seem that our choices are somewhat limited to people with the financial means to run. Which brings me to my main point.
The press seems to love jumping on any utterance of Mitt Romney's that hints at his personal fortune. The pundits aren't content with stringing him up for being a successful businessman, which wasn't always the kiss of death it is today. No, as is the case for almost anyone seeking public office, his words, be they serious statements of policy or lighthearted utterances, get run through the blogophere drag-and-drop context blender, and late-night comedy spin to reflect poorly on his sense, judgement or grasp of reality.
One version of the current spin is that Romney is suffering from a surfeit of "gaffes," telling comments that reveal what a truly rich, evil person he is. In case you've been (wisely) ignoring the day-to-day coverage of campaign minutiae, here are few of the ripe comments the former governor let drop in recent weeks:
Just like us boring, everyday folk, Mitt knows about NASCAR; he has friends who are team owners.
As a staunch American car industry supporter, Mitt's wife owns a couple of Cadillacs.
As a business owner and manager, he took pleasure in firing greedy, incompetent employees.
He can't be blamed for the crass but obvious-to-everyone statement, suggesting that campaigns go through stages, and candidates adjust their message like hitting a reset button or shaking an Etch-A-Sketch. Romney's communications director, Eric Ferhnstrom, served up that tasty nugget, and can only be blamed for telling the truth with an alarming lack of awareness of the potential for damage. For more on campaigns reinventing their candidates, google Hillary Clinton campaign hairstyle, Ronald Reagan 1982 tax increase, Barack Obama flag lapel pin, to name a few noteworthy changes mid-stream.
Back to Romney: his current estimated net worth of $200 - 250 million places him among the nation's 3,140 richest people, in the top 0.001% of Americans. Compared to him, Rick Santorum and his large family look like paupers. But this is America! The favorite destination of wealth-seekers for four centuries and counting! Why is success and wealth considered a liability in this particular election?
Back to Romney: his current estimated net worth of $200 - 250 million places him among the nation's 3,140 richest people, in the top 0.001% of Americans. Compared to him, Rick Santorum and his large family look like paupers. But this is America! The favorite destination of wealth-seekers for four centuries and counting! Why is success and wealth considered a liability in this particular election?
It seems that if the media likes a candidate, it's okay if they are wealthy; if they don't like a candidate, their wealth works to their disadvantage. I feel a song coming on - sing along!
♫ If you’re wealthy and you
know it, hold your tongue! ♫
Let's be clear. I'm not poor - far from it. I don't worry about my next meal and I'm not plagued by foreclosure notices and utility shutoffs. But the recession, the steady rise in the cost of food and fuel, and difficulty saving apace the rising cost of college expenses have been hard on my family. We're middle class in assets and income, but our outgo is getting dangerously close to our income.
But I, and most thinking Americans, don't automatically blame the rich and successful for the problems of our economy and rising costs. I believe that I'd be worse off if the rich and successful were prevented from making and spending their money to grow businesses and corporations that feed the consumer economy in which we all exist. Yes, I believe that there are a few evil rich people who'd like to steal from me, but I also believe there are a few evil poor people who'd like to steal from me, and quite a few unsavory types between the extremes.
However, I'd be more disturbed if Romney tried to pretend to know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck, or affected an affinity for the poor, or the uneducated, which he couldn't sincerely achieve. What the left calls "blunders" and "gaffes," I would simply term "efforts." We all attempt to empathize with situations we've never personally experienced. I've committed gaffes when I've tried to comfort friends grieving the death of a spouse, or attempted to identify with the challenges of a parent of a special needs child. I don't always say the right thing, but that doesn't stop me from trying to empathize or sympathize when I want to make a human connection.
I want a president who can get the job done. The only way I know if he can do the job is to look at his past successes and failures and judge how those will enable him to handle future challenges.
I haven't been on the Romney bandwagon, and I'm not necessarily jumping on now. But we're looking to elect a leader, an executive, a person who can analyze complex problems with multiple variables and make trustworthy decisions. He's running for President of the United States, not Mr. Congeniality. I'm prepared to cut him some slack for not being able to hide the fact that he's lived life as a wealthy man.
But I, and most thinking Americans, don't automatically blame the rich and successful for the problems of our economy and rising costs. I believe that I'd be worse off if the rich and successful were prevented from making and spending their money to grow businesses and corporations that feed the consumer economy in which we all exist. Yes, I believe that there are a few evil rich people who'd like to steal from me, but I also believe there are a few evil poor people who'd like to steal from me, and quite a few unsavory types between the extremes.
However, I'd be more disturbed if Romney tried to pretend to know what it's like to live paycheck to paycheck, or affected an affinity for the poor, or the uneducated, which he couldn't sincerely achieve. What the left calls "blunders" and "gaffes," I would simply term "efforts." We all attempt to empathize with situations we've never personally experienced. I've committed gaffes when I've tried to comfort friends grieving the death of a spouse, or attempted to identify with the challenges of a parent of a special needs child. I don't always say the right thing, but that doesn't stop me from trying to empathize or sympathize when I want to make a human connection.
I want a president who can get the job done. The only way I know if he can do the job is to look at his past successes and failures and judge how those will enable him to handle future challenges.
I haven't been on the Romney bandwagon, and I'm not necessarily jumping on now. But we're looking to elect a leader, an executive, a person who can analyze complex problems with multiple variables and make trustworthy decisions. He's running for President of the United States, not Mr. Congeniality. I'm prepared to cut him some slack for not being able to hide the fact that he's lived life as a wealthy man.
No comments:
Post a Comment