Since
When Is Wealth Itself Evil?
There is an old saying that money is the root of all evil.
In the King James version of the New Testament, the first book of Timothy
warns that “For
the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they
have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
It’s not the first time that the Bible has gone after rich people. There’s always the passage in the Book of
Matthew about a camel having a better chance of going through the “eye of the needle” than a
wealthy man entering heaven. There are
plenty of references to wealth being a hindrance to being good people and thus
worthy of that great reward in the hereafter.
These are hypocritical given the number of wealthy evangelical leaders
who put a certain orange-skinned narcissistic conman in the White House and
proclaim him to be chosen by God. But
that is a subject for a different time.
No, today is about the idea that having money itself is evil, especially
when you are supposedly on the side of the “have-nots” in America. Whether you’re a Democrat, or just a
progressive, or just a secular humanist, or just an independent that says that
the ongoing economic screwjob in the world is wrong, it seems a second condemnation
is being hurled if you also happen to have some serious coin in your bank
account.
Yes, every presidential wannabe in the 2020 Presidential Fraud is
wealthy. Especially the ones that serve
or have served in the United States Senate.
They’re all millionaires and billionaires in the Senate. There are even two wealthy people in the
running – Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg – that are betting that their own
wealth can buy their way into the White House.
Bloomberg especially is betting on the idea that he can skip the early
primaries and caucuses and focus on the big ones to win. He’s already peppering the nation with his
ads long before anyone else. Will it
work? Time will tell.
But even the wannabes not named Bloomberg or Steyer are getting criticized
for having money while criticizing the wealthy.
The red-hats are whining like Walmart brats that Senator Elizabeth
Warren has money. She’s sold books that
have made her wealthy. How “dare” she
criticize the wealthy, they exclaim!
Same with Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist
and perpetual presidential wannabe who has been in and out of the Democratic
Party for so long he could almost qualify as a sex worker. (And now
that idea will be stuck in your head forever.
You’re welcome.)
Wouldn’t you know it? He also
published a few books and made some coin off those. How “dare” he, they whine!
How “dare” people with money complain about other people with money! How “dare” people with money champion ideas
that affect other people with money!
That seems to be the hypocritical claim.
While it is true that traditionally the biggest critics of the haves are
those that have-not, being wealthy in and of itself should not be a
disqualifying factor.
Here’s a dirty little secret: not one of America’s founding fathers were
poor. They all had wealth in one manner
or another. Not everyone could vote in
America either. So the ones that ratified
the United States Constitution and those early Amendments and voted in the
delegates that would form the Congress and help elect the President of the United
States were white, male, Christian (usually
Protestant), and were landowners.
That meant that you had to have some money in order to own land. If you were poor, if you were female, if you
weren’t Caucasian, if you were not of the dominant religious belief, and if you
didn’t own land, you did not matter. The
Constitution still applied to you, but you had no power over the political
process.
So how is it that the ideas still applied to everyone, rich or poor, and
the founders were cherished for bringing them to be, when none of them were
poor?
Well the answer is simple: It’s not about money, or even having money. It has always been about how that money is
used.
Let’s get brutally honest here... money in and of itself, having wealth
in and of itself, is neither good nor evil.
It is a means to whatever end you decide.
There have been countless stories of people who have lived long lives
seemingly in near poverty, living in the same home, driving the same car, never
making any extravagant purchases, being frugal to a fault. Then, after they die, you find out they have small
fortune stashed away that they kept to themselves and they never spent. Did having all that money change them? Of course not! They were the same people throughout their
lives, whether they saved up one hundred dollars or one million dollars.
Then you see all these con-artists who bilk people while dressing to the
nines and living the life of a millionaire.
They get caught, they lose it all, they go away (sometimes to prison), and then they come
back and they play the same game all over again someplace else. Money doesn’t really change them either,
because they’ve always been that way. It’s
just how they are. They’re grifters. Confidence people. Scam artists.
Frauds.
It’s not having the money that makes them good or evil. It is how they acquire it and what they do
with it that makes them so.
So, getting back to our millionaire and billionaire presidential wannabes
and the causes they champion, is it wrong for someone like Senators Warren and
Sanders to have some coin from book sales or speaking engagements? No. Should
they be required to live like hermits in order to champion the
downtrodden? Should they have to give up
their homes in order to champion the homeless?
Should they give up their cars in order to defend those who have to take
the bus? Should they starve in order to champion
those who are suffering from hunger?
It seems that we set some unrealistic expectations on the liberals and
progressives who want to defend the poor and middle-class. We buy into this myth that they should be
poor in order to help those who are. But
that “rule” only applies to them.
A certain reality-show narcissist gets the support of the “common man”, and,
while he claims to “give up” his millions, he really doesn’t. His golf courses and luxury hotels get droves
of new international guests who seek his favor.
He helps out his wealthy friends with tax breaks and tax cuts at the
expense of the national debt. He engages
in a trade war that threatens our economy just so he can claim ownership of a
new “deal”. And he still struts around
like a pampered princess, and nobody calls him on it... but those same people
that idolize him are quick to condemn a certain former
bartender-turned-congresswoman for
wearing a borrowed dress on TV instead of sackcloth and ashes.
The problems we face in America today – wealth inequality, poverty,
homelessness – come from how wealth is gathered and how it is used. We place profit over people, and the wealth
of business over its health. We let
investment groups buy businesses they have no idea how to manage, only how to
pilfer and profit and exploit like the parasites they are. We give tax breaks and tax cuts to the
wealthy who then add that to their profit margins. We focus on the success of Wall Street
instead of Main Street or even our own streets.
And everyone seems to love debt... personal debt, hospital debt, student
loan debt, corporate debt... until the bill goes unpaid.
Sounds familiar, don’t you think?
Maybe something that happened three presidential elections ago?
These are the issues we need to deal with, and we can’t do that if we’re
haggling over who is championing the cause and whether or not they’re “too wealthy”
to do so.
I’m going to leave you with this quote:
“Clients do not come first.
Employees come first. If you take care of your employees, they will take care
of the clients.”
The person who said that was not some union leader or Democratic
presidential wannabe.
The person who said that was Sir Richard Branson, CEO of Virgin Group. A man who still makes money today but doesn’t
forget why his empire is the way it is today.
Maybe if we had more people like him in the business world, we wouldn’t
have need for solutions from people like Sanders and Warren and Steyer and
Bloomberg.
No comments:
Post a Comment