Here's a circular argument for you. The wealthy elite are a better class of people because they are wealthy.
We would like to think that the arrogance of the wealthy would be long gone from a supposedly democratic society.
We would like to think that. But too often, that's not the case, especially with the newly wealthy. It often takes several generations for the arrogance to wear off. In old-money families, young folk grow up with it, so there's little to prove, and they are far easier to get along with. New-money folk aren't used to it yet, so many believe they are owed respect simply because they are wealthy. Old-money folk know that respect must be earned; it cannot be bought.
Members of the Petulant Class believe that their status alone, as members of the wealthy one percent, entitles them to special benefits and special treatment, and they are surprised and insulted when they don't get it.
It's an old attitude, widely prevalent in the 19th Century and personified by those who resented those -- especially union organizers -- who worked for better conditions. Industrialists at the time felt they knew what was right and appropriate, so the workers in the lesser classes should behave themselves and do what they were told.
In the 1930s, similar arguments were made in opposition to unemployment insurance and government-sponsored pensions for retired workers. Union organizers faced often violent opposition to their claims that workers deserved a livable wage and a safe environment.
Unfortunately, that attitude is still found today. It was, and is, an argument based on class and little else. It's an assumption based on this: The wealthy are a better class of people because they are wealthy. And the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor. Some even invoked a divinity to endorse their argument.
It is a supreme arrogance to presume to know what God wants for other people.
No comments:
Post a Comment