“In Defense of a Wealthy Executive”
By: J. Hunter
 |
| A Mitt Romney Home (pic1) |
In December, the New York Times
ran a story about the Republican presidential candidates’ homes that fascinated
me.[1]
The Times employed “design psychologists” to determine the candidates’
personality by looking at pictures of their homes. Though the psychologists
reportedly left their “political leanings aside,” the article drips with the
predictable, snide disdain for all things conservative that one comes to expect
from the Old Gray Lady. Apart from the silly jabs at the candidates’ style (or
apparent lack thereof), the article promoted an overarching theme that seemed
to be the very reason it was written in the first place: the Republican
candidates are very wealthy. This point means nothing if considered outside the
context of the larger contemporary political conversation about economic class
and class warfare. It also used to mean nothing to people outside the liberal
world. Today, though, apologizing for amassing wealth has infected even the
Republican nomination race; a development that manifests itself in Newt
Gingrich attacking Mitt Romney’s wealth, and in a former candidate, Rick Perry,
referring to Romney not as a venture capitalist, but as a “vulture” capitalist
instead.[2] To
make matters worse, Mr. Romney has responded to much of the attack by laughably
insisting that he is in the same economic straits as most Americans.[3] Perhaps, Romney is doing the politically adept
thing—striking a populist tone to convince the many unemployed Americans to
identify with him. What frustrates me, though, is that this populist tone
exists in the first place. Why would anyone consider a wealthy president to regret
his wealth? I argue that a presidential candidate should be wealthy, as a
prerequisite of the job he seeks. That is not to say that the wealthier the
candidate, the more viable he is for office, but rather, once a president is
monetarily wealthy, he becomes immediately more desirable as a national leader
than the vast majority of his countrymen.
 |
| Will Work for Money (pic2) |
Presidents should represent the
best of the country. He serves not only as the domestic chief executive, but he
also represents the manifestation of the country’s ideals and values. One of
the promises of America is that anyone can become rich by working hard,
delaying gratification and saving money. As a president ideally embodies this
American value, he, therefore, should
be rich—having earned his fortune morally and legally in the only way that one
may earn money in America, by providing goods and services for his fellow man. Virtually
everyone in America would like to be rich. Such a pursuit is a noble one, and
those who attain the goal of monetary wealth in the American system should be
exalted, and serve to motivate other citizens to do likewise.
While there is nothing inherently
wrong with being middle class, it is “the silver medal” of this race. A
president should represent absolute excellence, though, nothing less. The
skills that a wealthy person learns—how to maximize every dollar, how to save,
how to invest—are skills that a president must master if he is to serve as the
country’s chief executive. When those in the middle class learn and employ
these skills, they soon thereafter cease to be middle class and become more
eligible to be an American president.
Finally, despite contemporary
political rhetoric, especially of the liberal variety, there is no virtue in
poverty. Being poor does not, by definition, make one less virtuous or less
worthy of human respect and dignity, but it often is the result of virtue-less
decision making. Failing to earn a high school diploma, engaging in drug or
alcohol abuse, divorcing and producing children out of wedlock are common
ingredients used to create poverty. The poor who do not “achieve” poverty by
these means are instantly raised by opponents to disprove my proposition. Their
existence does not disprove my claims because these poor people represent a
small percentage of the poor, and are usually only mentioned to lessen the
sting of the truth. America’s poor do not want to remain poor, nor do the
middle class or the rich wish to join their ranks. They, therefore, do not
represent the best of America, and should not, in the chief executive role.
 |
| Our Current Wealthy President (pic3) |
Mitt Romney, therefore, should
not be made to run from his wealth and success. No candidate for public office
should. Ironically, he sustains these attacks from other wealthy people, and if
he is the nominee (as I hope he will be), he will face these attacks from a
very wealthy incumbent, President Barack Obama. It is important for Americans
to understand that not all wealth is simply inherited, that inherited wealth is
not bad and that acquiring wealth has more to do with delayed gratification and
hard work than it does with dumb luck. This message should be trumpeted from
the nation’s highest office and it is most credibly done so if the nation’s
highest office holder is, himself, wealthy.
Article
Sources:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/garden/the-houses-of-the-gop-hopefuls.html?pagewanted=all
[2] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/giuliani-calls-gingrichs-anti-romney-attacks-ignorant-dumb/
[3] http://youtu.be/gssqflNQ_YU
Photo Sources: "Pic1" from http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_mitt_romney_home_ll_111229_wb.jpg; "Pic2" from http://ameyawaghmare.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/the-rich-do-not-work-for-money.jpg; "Pic3" from http://capitolcommentary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/obamatoastA.jpg
