New rich should not just consume

Noblesse Oblige
    By Jay Munir

Sitting between two boarding school students on a recent flight out of Hartford, I decided to strike up a conversation by asking them what they wanted to do with their lives. The answers I received from the teenagers, all centered around making greater and greater amounts of money, were not unlike those one would probably hear from most people their age. Their responses, however, were still an unsettling reminder of a marked trend among members of the country's well-to-do classes.

Securing high-paying jobs, driving fancy automobiles, and buying vacation homes have always been highly visible objectives of the rich. But for all the deserved criticism that the well-off endure for their displays of excess, the wealthy have played a pivotal role in the maintenance of the moderate political and social traditions that have characterized American history.

A century ago, the appearance of the millionaire was accompanied by the writings of men like Andrew Carnegie, who extolled the virtues of an economic system which, for all its inequalities, offered every individual the opportunity to get ahead. Soon after, the middle class reformers of the Progressive Era worked to ensure that the ills of industrialized society were addressed in order to stave off the more radical change advocated by those disillusioned with American capitalism. A patrician Democrat initiated the construction of a welfare safety net during the Depression, and individuals with last names like Kennedy and Rockefeller have consistently been on the front lines of battles for greater social justice in the political system.

Increasing numbers of today's upper classes, however, have largely abdicated their role in maintaining stability within the social system. While yesterday's wealthy liberals subscribed to the notion that those who succeed have an obligation to assist those the system left behind, flat-taxers score big political points in today's affluent suburbs. Instead of recognizing that social peace is threatened by widening economic fissures, the more modern answer seems to lie in constructing thicker walls around gated communities and keeping public transport out of affluent areas.

Beyond the lofty ideals of American reformers, traditional liberalism has always centered around the understanding that if issues of poverty and social injustice are not addressed, the poor may simply take what they need from the moneyed. Today, a more popular option is to stock cars with ever louder security systems.

Perhaps the most salient explanation for this trend is the sense of disillusionment many feel with liberal government programs designed to correct social ills. It has become the norm to view plans like the Great Society as failures of an over-extended and highly bureaucratized federal government. The idea that the less significant the goals of a government program are the more likely the program is to succeed is widely accepted by political commentators and laymen alike. Who can blame them when Democrats and Republicans unite in the position that, in the words of President Bill Clinton, LAW '73, "the era of big government is over?" Most do not remember the times--before the advent of programs like food stamps and Medicaid--when people were starving in the streets and social unrest threatened to topple the existing social order.

With the stock market climbing to new heights, the federal budget deficit shrinking, and the vast majority of Americans better off than they have been in some time, the danger seems remote. While many recognize the fact that a significant portion of America, particularly those in inner cities, are being left out of the current national prosperity, it seems far easier to shut out these enduring and frustrating problems and focus on one's own personal success. Second homes, expensive vacations, and new computers mask the sense of impotence many feel in addressing the country's problems.

The danger in this situation is that ignoring these pressing issues does not cancel out the ineffectiveness of past efforts to aid the poor. If ambitious government programs and higher taxes for the wealthy are not the solution, a viable alternative must be created. The current laissez-faire attitude pervading the policies of both parties will not dampen the deepening frustration of those who feel they have no chance at attaining the wealth being generated in the glass skyscrapers around them. As policies ranging from Medicaid to affirmative action continue to take a beating inside and outside the government, without new solutions to replace them, the threat that our social divisions will explode becomes more worrisome.

The wealthy have an obligation to jumpstart efforts to address the country's deferred social problems. Aiding those left behind in the wake of their success will help ensure the survival of the country's moderate economic and political policies. If moral arguments hold no sway, self interest should. If social divisions manifest themselves in calls for radical change, all the car alarms in the world won't protect the social peace and mass political moderation the wealthy have often taken for granted.

Back to Opinion...