Let's Take A Look— From Plato To Tolstoy To Chomsky
Let’s go back to high school for a minute. When we read War and Peace— in my case— I think it was Mr. Fulmer who taught us that in his critique of the great wealth and power held by the aristocracy, Tolstoy went out of his way to contrast the opulent lifestyles of the nobility with the suffering and hardship faced by normal people. A prime example of unholy decadence was Pierre Bezukhov, who inherited immense wealth but struggled with its implications, as Tolstoy explored the corrupting influence of money and the emptiness that can accompany material possessions. That wife of his, Hélène Kuragin, is the personification one of Tolstoy's sharpest critiques of the filthy rich, who he portrayed as morally corrupt, using her wealth and beauty for manipulation, social climbing and selfish gains. Her actions represent the shallow, materialistic nature of the elite, particularly when wealth is disconnected from a sense of moral responsibility. Tolstoy was eager to highlight the social injustices and inequalities perpetuated by the aristocracy— obviously the exploitation of serfs— and the lack of opportunities for the lower classes. One of the greatest novels ever written is a critique of the excesses and privileges of the aristocracy, making it crystal clear that, on a personal level, wealth and power don’t necessarily lead to happiness or fulfillment… nor, on a social level, to any semblance of good governance or a healthy society.
Tolstoy is hardly the only literary great who held that opinion. Karl Marx was a contemporary of his, around 10 years older. His explicit critique of capitalism in The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, argues that the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few capitalists— the bourgeoisie— leads to their domination of political systems, making genuine democracy impossible. Marx saw the wealthy ruling class as inherently antagonistic to the working class and believed that the political dominance of the wealthy was incompatible with true freedom and equality. Nothing’s changed there, that’s for sure.
Both had read The Republic, in which Plato looks askance at the accumulation of wealth by the ruling class, arguing that in a just society, rulers should not be motivated by wealth or personal gain but by the pursuit of the common good. Recognizing that excessive wealth corrupts the soul and that rulers must remain financially neutral to govern fairly, he proposed a philosopher-king model, where leaders are selected for their wisdom and commitment to justice, rather than wealth or status.
Enlightenment thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract and Discourse on Inequality) was also pretty explicit about the corrupting influence of wealth on governance, arguing that the pursuit of wealth fosters inequality, which in turn undermines the moral fabric of society. Rousseau believed that a more egalitarian political system would be the antidote to this corruption and he advocated for a society that limits the concentration of wealth in political hands.
In our own times, Noam Chomsky has written extensively on the influence of great wealth on politics, particularly in Manufacturing Consent and Profit Over People, warning that concentrated wealth allows elites to control the political process and shape policies that serve their interests.
Yesterday, Siobhan Hughes, writing about multimillionaire GOP Senate candidates David McCormick (PA), Eric Hovde (WI) and Tim Sheehy (MT), noted that “The GOP often embraces wealthy candidates without a long record in state politics because they can pump in their own cash, helping the party close Democrats’ typical fundraising and ad-buying advantages. But such a profile carries risks… Republicans have had to grapple with the ‘carpetbagger’ label that Democrats are applying, knowing the power of the attack for voters who are rooted firmly in their states.”
As a progressive, I’ve had conflicted feelings about extremely wealthy candidates. Historically, despite being from a privileged background, FDR used his presidency to transform American society through the New Deal, pushing for reforms that supported working people during the Great Depression. His inherited wealth didn’t stop him from aligning with progressive causes, arguably making him one of the greatest champions of social welfare and labor rights. Some historians say that Roosevelt saved capitalism from collapsing under its own excesses, and that the New Deal was kind of a safety valve that responded to the immense pressures of the Great Depression. Without its social safety net programs— Social Security, unemployment insurance, labor protections— the growing discontent among workers and the unemployed could have led to revolutionary upheavals, potentially opening the door to socialism (or fascism). By offering concessions to workers and the poor, FDR placated much of this discontent without fundamentally changing the capitalist framework. There was no radical redistribution of wealth (and power).
FDR’s policies undercut Huey Long and a burgeoning socialist movement by co-opting some of their demands in a way that preserved private ownership and free markets. Programs like WPA provided jobs without shifting control of industries to the workers, and reforms like the NLRA protected labor rights without challenging the capitalist system itself. While the New Deal expanded government involvement in the economy, it did so without nationalizing key industries, let alone redistributing private wealth in a socialist manner. FDR worked within the framework of capitalism, using Keynesian economic principles— government intervention to stabilize markets and demand— to fix the economy rather than dismantle it. By regulating banks, insuring deposits (through the FDIC) and providing infrastructure jobs, Roosevelt actually strengthened capitalism by addressing its excesses.
When conservatives talk about wealthy self-funders like McCormick, Hovde and Sheehy the first thing they bring up is how self-funding candidates aren't reliant on donations from corporations, PACs or wealthy donors, which can free them from obligations or compromises related to these groups. They can pursue policies they believe in without pressure to cater to influential backers and spend less time fundraising and more time on policy discussions and outreach which leads to more substantive engagement with voters. Generally, self-funding candidates portray themselves as outsiders who aren't beholden to “the system,” arguing that their wealth allows them to bypass the traditional political establishment, offering a fresh perspective.
And of course, many voters— usually really stupid ones and that is, after all, the majority— see wealthy candidates as successful in business or other fields, assuming that such experience translates into good governance. This can appeal to people who believe private-sector skills are needed in public office.
No one pushed this line more forcefully— and more successfully than the most dishonest politician in U.S. history, Señor Trumpanzee— a glaring example who negates everything remotely positive about self-funders, particularly regarding independence from special interests and focusing on issues over fundraising. Trump is the most corrupt and criminally-minded (and incompetent) man to ever occupy the White House. His residency showed that being wealthy doesn’t insulate a candidate from corruption, self-interest or the influence of powerful groups. While self-funding candidates might not need to rely on donations from special interests, it doesn’t mean they won’t still cater to them. No one on earth is more greedy, corrupt and avaricious than the very rich. Trump, despite his wealth, surrounded himself with lobbyists, corporate elites, criminal, traitors and donor-class interests while in office. And while in theory a self-funder could focus more on policy and voters, Trump’s campaign and presidency showed that wealthy candidates often remain fixated on optics, media attention and personal branding rather than substantive policy engagement. Trump spent considerable time fundraising and hosting donor events despite his wealth and while cynically painting himself as a populist, his policy agenda favored the wealthy, such as massive tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-rich. His handling of healthcare, education, and economic inequality show clearly that he was and continues to be out of touch with the daily struggles of average Americans. His failed presidency illustrated the dangers of consolidating political power with wealthy individuals, especially when combined with authoritarian impulses. His business interests, alongside his political power, led to endless conflicts of interest, showing how a wealthy candidate will almost always amplify the worst aspects of money in politics.
On top of that, Trump's personality epitomizes the perception of entitlement. His statements and actions diplay a disregard for democratic norms, and he fosters a sense that his wealth and position granted him immunity from accountability—culminating in efforts to undermine electoral outcomes when they didn’t favor him. His presidency was a case study in how a wealthy candidate can exploit office for personal gain. His refusal to divest from his businesses, coupled with constant allegations of corruption, underscored the dangers of electing self-funders who see public office as an extension of their personal empire.
Even taking Trump out off the equation, extremely wealthy candidates like Hovde, Sheehy and McCormack are out of touch with the struggles of everyday people. They lack firsthand experience with— and sympathy for— issues like economic insecurity, affordable healthcare or rising education costs, leading to policies that always favor their own class. A self-funded campaign gives rise to concerns about growing economic inequality and the power of money in politics. Allowing the wealthy to buy their way into office raises questions about whether democracy is truly functioning for all or simply for the rich. Wealthy candidates almost always prioritize policies that align with their business interests or tax brackets. Their “solutions” to core problems tend to be limited to market-based fixes, leaving out more systemic or structural reforms that could help the working class or marginalized groups.
A few days ago, my friend Ritchie reminded me of the Wells Fargo case, in which the mega-banksters ripped off a million or more customers, created 2 million accounts in unsuspecting customers’ names, and caused thousands to have their cars repossessed because their payment checks bounced as a result of unauthorized bank fees being deducted and unauthorized transfers being made, among other insidious tricks. The result: the CEO was forced to resign with a 9-figure severance package; the head of community banking was forced to resign with an 8-figure package, and the bank was forced to pay a $180 million fine. $180 million is a big number, unless you put it in context. That year, Wells Fargo reported profits of $23 billion. Ritchie is pretty good at math, and he pointed out me me that the fine they paid was 3 days worth of profits. It was a cost of doing business, like corporate jets and board meetings in Seychelles.
That caper caused him to start advocating for what he calls the CEOPS Act (Corporate Executives in Orange Prison Suits). “Those Wells Fargo execs should have been prosecuted,” he told me. “The Boeing execs who decided to compromise safety to avoid cost, should have been prosecuted. The Norfolk Southern execs who put tens of thousands of people’s health at risk because they took an ill-advised shortcut to deal with their chemical tanker train derailment should be prosecuted. Norfolk Southern also acted against the recommendation of the companies that manufactured the chemicals when they decided to vent and burn them. Isn’t that a crime? The latest report said that 16 states have been impacted by the vent-and-burn decision. The Silicon Valley Bank dudes who dumped their stock two days before declaring insolvency should be prosecuted. Rick Scott is in the Senate, and never spent a day in prison, because of the apparent RWG exemption in the constitution (rich white guy). [The company he headed and controlled] paid the biggest fine for Medicare/Medicaid fraud in history. He’s still rich, and he still holds high office.”
The way Ritchie sees it, “Conservatives think that our criminal justice system should mete out harsh sentences, to deter crime. Why are executive white collar criminals exempt from harsh sentences? They can do more harm than most individual criminals can… The rich white guy exemption doesn’t always hold. Bankman-Fried, Peterson, Madoff went to prison for their crimes. My theory is that the crime wasn’t defrauding their investors, it was that the investors were other rich people. Theft is only a crime with it involves rich victims.
As for this kind of crime normally being exempt from harsh punishment… perhaps it’s because there are significantly more multimillionaires in Congress today compared to past decades. Reports indicate that around half of current U.S. Congress members are millionaires, with some worth tens or even hundreds of millions. This is a stark contrast to earlier periods in U.S. history when Congress was less wealthy overall. For instance, in the early 20th century, lawmakers often came from more modest backgrounds. The rise in personal wealth among lawmakers has been especially noticeable in the last few decades, as corporate influence, deregulation and increasing campaign costs have changed the makeup of those who can afford to run for office. This concentration of wealth in Congress has a toxic impact on policy. Wealthy lawmakers are more insulated from the economic realities faced by their constituents, which leads to policies that favor the rich. While not all wealthy members act against the interests of the working class, the overall trend suggests a legislative bias toward policies like tax cuts for the rich, reduced corporate regulation and resistance to reforms such as wealth taxes or universal healthcare.
Currently, Congress has very few members from the working class. The vast majority of representatives and senators come from backgrounds of affluence or have professional careers such as law, business or medicine. According to recent data, almost all lawmakers in Congress have at least a bachelor's degree, which stands in stark contrast to the broader population, where such high wealth and education levels are not nearly as common. There are a few members who have worked in blue-collar or lower-wage jobs prior to their political careers, but they are quite rare. I’m not alone when I contend that this disparity in class representation has a real impact on policy-making. Members from wealthier backgrounds are less familiar with the economic struggles of lower-income Americans. This lack of familiarity influences their policy priorities and decisions. The dominance of wealthy individuals in Congress leads to a focus on legislation that benefits corporations, high-income earners and other affluent groups, rather than addressing the needs of the working class. This shift in representation toward wealthier members is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it's linked to the increasing costs of running for office, which often precludes candidates without access to substantial financial resources. As more multimillionaires enter Congress, the gap grows between lawmakers and the constituents they're supposed to represent.
You neglected to mention the tax rate on the rich that FDR et al imposed through the '60s. So wealth WAS redistributed... AS WELL AS created. Yours was an unfair characterization.