Noblesse Oblige No More

I'm so glad that Paul Krugman wrote about this issue. While this argument has bothered me for some time, it wasn't until I read Krugman's column that I focused on what is really at issue. It was really irksome every time that I read the implied (and in some cases, direct) aspersions about John Edwards being a phony merely because he is wealthy, yet espouses causes for the poor and less fortunate. I assume the theory is that if one has money, that precludes an ability to have compassion or empathy for anyone who may be in different circumstances (read that = social class) than you.

Via Rozius Unbound, in Authentic? Never Mind, Krugman explains:

Rich liberals who claim they’ll help America’s less fortunate are phonies.

Let me give you one example — a Democrat who said he’d work on behalf of workers and the poor. He even said he’d take on Big Business. But the truth is that while he was saying those things, he was living in a big house and had a pretty lavish summer home too. His favorite recreation, sailing, was incredibly elitist. And he didn’t talk like a regular guy.

Clearly, this politician wasn’t authentic. His name? Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Luckily, that’s not how the political game was played 70 years ago. F.D.R. wasn’t accused of being a phony; he was accused of being a “traitor to his class.” But today, it seems, politics is all about seeming authentic. A recent Associated Press analysis of the political scene asked: “Can you fake authenticity? Probably not, but it might be worth a try.”

* * * *

For example, the case of F.D.R. shows that there’s nothing inauthentic, in the normal sense of the word, about calling for higher taxes on the rich while being rich yourself. If anything, it’s to your credit if you advocate policies that will hurt your own financial position. But the news media seem to find it deeply disturbing that John Edwards talks about fighting poverty while living in a big house.

I finally figured out what the problem is. As we well know, compassionate conservatism is just a campaign slogan, to be tossed aside like the other campaign literature after the election. Under the new world order, greed knows no bounds and self interest is paramount.

The really rich today have no compassion for anyone and that is the prevalent modus operandi -- from the White House to gentry inhabiting the gated communities, as the wealthy insulate themselves from the lowly masses. The disparity between rich and poor is ever widening and the interaction between them is diminishing. The Rich Are Making the Poor Poorer. With that comes the ability to dehumanize those who are on the lower economic end of the spectrum.

Philly has been treated to the local Main Line version of that with Susan Tepper -- the heiress/ nanny beater extraordinaire, Accused nanny-beater Susan Tabas Tepper to stand trial, who epitomizes this mentality. See also, Swinging Susie.

Politicians with a social conscience, like FDR and John Kennedy, would fare the same way John Edwards has. The problem is no just John Edwards. It that anyone would consider someone other than their own kind. Because of the self centered focus, it is beyond the comprehension of many that anyone would look beyond themselves and exhibit a real concern for others, especially those of a "lesser class." To the extent such a concern is expressed, it must just be campaign jargon -- it could never be an honest sentiment. Noblesse oblige is one of those quaint concepts that has no relevance in society today.

Tags: Commentary, Politics, Paul Krugman