Author Topic: What to Make of the Plutocrats in Trump’s Midst  (Read 616 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EasyAce

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,385
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Blue, 2012-2020---my big, gentle friend.
What to Make of the Plutocrats in Trump’s Midst
« on: December 16, 2016, 02:45:20 pm »
By Jonah Goldberg
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443111/donald-trump-wealthy-cabinet-historical-lessons

Quote
The net worth of Donald Trump’s cabinet appointments so far reportedly exceeds $14.5 billion (if you
include Trump’s deputy commerce secretary pick, Todd Ricketts).

As someone utterly immune to plutophobia — fear of wealth — I have no problem with this. (For what it’s
worth, I know Todd Ricketts and think he’s a great pick.) Rich people can be fine public servants. And if liberals
want to argue otherwise, we’re going to have to revisit the records of presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and
John F. Kennedy, not to mention plutocrats such as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Jon Corzine, and,
for that matter, Hillary Clinton. Surely even Green Party gadfly Dr. Jill Stein would be ecstatic if the Constitution
permitted billionaire George Soros to be president of the United States.

Just as it is not automatically terrible to have a clowder of fat cats descend on Washington, it’s not automatically
a good thing either. However, to listen to a host of pro-Trump pundits, or the president-elect himself, the new
administration is an obvious and brilliant boon.

“I want people that made a fortune because now they’re negotiating with you,” Trump explained recently. “It’s
not different than a great baseball player or a great golfer.”

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the president-elect sees it this way, since this is pretty much exactly the case
he made to voters for 16 months. And it’s precisely why his biggest supporters said they wanted him to be
president. It would be weird if he didn’t follow through on this promise. Trump was the change candidate running
against the record of a former-community-organizer president who once said that his brief stint working for the
private sector made him feel like he was “working behind enemy lines.”

So, again, there’s nothing undemocratic about what Trump is doing. Nor is it “unprecedented” to draft the business
community to Washington, as so many commentators have declared. But it is that precedent which should give
us some pause.

President Woodrow Wilson enlisted the help of corporate titans to help with the war effort. These “dollar-a-year
men” descended on Washington to help Wilson win World War I to make the world “safe for democracy.” They were
called dollar-a-year men because it is illegal to work for the government and not draw a salary (don’t tell that to the
interns, by the way), so they took a symbolic buck for their services.

The dollar-a-year men certainly helped with the war-mobilization effort, but they often did so by creating rules that
helped their own industries, mostly by establishing cartels, which almost abolished competitive bidding. The War
Industries Board, for instance, staffed almost entirely by eminent industrialists, also fixed prices on commodities,
froze wages, commandeered railroads, and the like. Grosvenor Clarkson, the head of the WIB, boasted how firms
run by “individualistic” people (code for free-market advocates) who didn’t play along were steamrolled: “The
occasional obstructor fled from the mandates of the Board only to find himself ostracized by his fellows in industry.”

Of course, this was all in service to the war effort, at least in principle, and hopefully the days of total war mobilization
are behind us. Still, there are lessons to be drawn.

One version of this chapter in American history holds that the dollar-a-year men were greedy and grasping scions of
Big Business bending the state to their needs, particularly the munitions manufacturers. This tale can be overstated —
and has been for a century — but it’s not like there isn’t any evidence to support it.

A more modest interpretation is that “big players” — to borrow a phrase from Donald Trump — see efficiency in dealing
with other big players. Big-time dealmakers, almost by definition, tend to cut big-time deals with other big-time
dealmakers.

Conventional policymakers have this tendency as well. Barack Obama often boasted about how he got the “stakeholders”
around the table to draft the Affordable Care Act. The lobbyists for big business explained at the time that if you’re not
at the table, you’re on the menu. That proved to be prescient for all of the small-business owners and purchasers of
individual health plans who were chewed up because they were too small to get a seat. So-called public-private
partnerships invariably reward big businesses and freeze out smaller businesses that want a shot at becoming big
one day.

Ostensibly pro-market cheerleaders for the coming rule of businessmen should at least keep that in mind in the days
ahead.


"The question of who is right is a small one, indeed, beside the question of what is right."---Albert Jay Nock.

Fake news---news you don't like or don't want to hear.

Offline Cripplecreek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,718
  • Gender: Male
  • Constitutional Extremist
Re: What to Make of the Plutocrats in Trump’s Midst
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2016, 02:48:23 pm »
They're his owners or at least his keepers.