Jerkigarchy
Paul Krugman on the impact of money on character.
Wealth can be bad for your soul. That’s not just a hoary piece of folk wisdom; it’s a conclusion from serious social science, confirmed by statistical analysis and experiment. The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder.
Especially in a place like the US, where getting rich is seen as evidence if not downright proof of merit.
Modern America is a society in which a growing share of income and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people, and these people have huge political influence — in the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign, around half the contributions came from fewer than 200 wealthy families. The usual concern about this march toward oligarchy is that the interests and policy preferences of the very rich are quite different from those of the population at large, and that is surely the biggest problem.
But it’s also true that those empowered by money-driven politics include a disproportionate number of spoiled egomaniacs.
Yes, I think that’s true. I think, again, it’s especially true in places where making lots of money=virtue. How can rich people not come to think they’re better than everyone else? And how can people like that be good at public service?
The most obvious illustration of the point I’ve been making is the man now leading the Republican field. Donald Trump would probably have been a blowhard and a bully whatever his social station. But his billions have insulated him from the external checks that limit most people’s ability to act out their narcissistic tendencies; nobody has ever been in a position to tell him, “You’re fired!” And the result is the face you keep seeing on your TV.
Not all that much in my case, because I avoid the nonstop election coverage.
But yes, the point is, by making our elections so much a matter of how much money the candidate has, we’ve locked ourselves into government by narcissistic bullies.
Just to be clear, the biggest reason to oppose the power of money in politics is the way it lets the wealthy rig the system and distort policy priorities. And the biggest reason billionaires hate Mr. Obama is what he did to their taxes, not their feelings. The fact that some of those buying influence are also horrible people is secondary.
But it’s not trivial. Oligarchy, rule by the few, also tends to become rule by the monstrously self-centered. Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy? Anyway, it’s an ugly spectacle, and it’s probably going to get even uglier over the course of the year ahead.
Happy new year.
There’s a reason for the jerkigarchy. (What a perfect term!) Lots of people will take whatever they can get. Proof is everywhere. Since we don’t have a hereditary aristocracy, selective pressure rewards the grabbiest. Presto, the wealthiest are jerks.
I guess it was one of the few benefits of hereditary elites: it made room for the occasional ethical dreamer at the top.
I wonder if there’s some way to get the benefits of not having to fight your way up there while avoiding the nasty consequences of hereditary elites? Randomize it? Every year ten people chosen at random to be rich and/or famous?
“money=virtue”, precisely a concern of Plato for the ideal polis explained in detail in Rebecca Goldstein’s brilliant book.
@1 quixote,
“Since we don’t have a hereditary aristocracy”
Perhaps not, in the formal sense, however a large percentage of wealth is inherited, from generation to generation, that seems like a hereditary elite to me. Selective pressure might, in many cases, reward the grabbiest or the least ethical, but others are just lucky.