"In Defense of a Wealthy Executive"

“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