A friend expressed puzzlement over his former apartment-mate’s Facebook feed: “He used to be a Republican.” The feed contains, interspersed with family and gourmet food photos, links to various anti-Trump articles, e.g., coverage of a preliminary hearing in a recently filed civil lawsuit alleging that, back in 1994, Donald Trump had sex with a 13-year-old girl (“Any woman who wants to make money by suing a man would be well-advised to allege rape,” said one divorce litigator). Underneath the story about the now-35-year-old woman’s quest for cash through litigation is a photo of our former Republican voter shaking hands with Hillary Clinton hash-tagged #ImWithHer.
[The 35-year-old woman didn’t file a criminal complaint against The Donald, so the only remedy available to her is cash. Attorneys promise that an anonymous witness will come forward to say that she observed an anonymous 12-year-old girl being raped in 1994, said nothing, continued to work for the organizer of the rape (not Trump) for eight more years, and is just now ready to speak up, but only in the context of a cash-seeking civil suit.]
How did this former Republican turn into an apparently passionate and certainly well-connected Democrat? Subsequent to his apartment-sharing days he became a high-level executive in a Silicon Valley giant. Why would a rich person support a candidate that promises to raise taxes? “Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run” (Guardian) offers one possible explanation:
the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta. They are last week’s scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.
The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.
There are wonderful things to be found in this treasure trove when you search the gilded words “Davos” or “Tahoe”. But it is when you search “Vineyard” on the WikiLeaks dump that you realize these people truly inhabit a different world from the rest of us. By “vineyard”, of course, they mean Martha’s Vineyard, the ritzy vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts where presidents Clinton and Obama spent most of their summer vacations. The Vineyard is a place for the very, very rich to unwind, yes, but as we learn from these emails, it is also a place of high idealism; a land of enlightened liberal commitment far beyond anything ordinary citizens can ever achieve.
Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful crony.
Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the “Global CEO Advisory Firm” that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.
But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it’s all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren’t part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don’t have John Podesta’s email address – you’re out.
So there you have it! If he wants his kids to get a job ten years from now at a Manhattan-based non-profit, he needs to be at a Hillary fundraiser today.
Phil, It’s interesting to me that you share this in the post *immediately* after questioning the “wealth begets wealth” premise you mocked in your own previous post, quoting you introducing a quote from the book:
“The book contains one example after another of genetics determining behavior, sometimes to the point that an entire species went extinct due to uncompetitive abilities. Yet there is one outcome that the author says cannot possibly be influenced by genes”
Hopefully this post answers your own question in the prior post.
There’s not much interesting in that Guardian excerpt. Instead of referring to “High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things.”:, the writer could have simply referred to rich people. It’s also quite likely that many of them didn’t in fact achieve much, but rather are present in the golden circle due to inherited wealth. Regarding the “Everything blurs into everything else in this world” paragraph – all of those institutions used to be called The Establishment in the UK and the same phenomenon probably exists everywhere.
You also need to keep in mind that the same cluster of institutions exists in the Republican world, perhaps with more business executives and fewer professors. I’ve heard of Fox News pundits whose kids are Congressional interns. There are also plenty of foundation and think tanks set up by people like the Koch brothers, along with other GOP billionaires who personally sponsor presidential candidates during the primary/caucus season every four years.
Paul’s point is the only interesting one to be made here. Many of these kids, like Chelsea Clinton and so many others, when they reach positions of wealth and power in middle age, will think that hard work, IQ and talent is what was required, completely ignoring all of the people who smoothed the path for them.
Is there really any difference between the two “parties” in the US…?
“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
George Orwell, Animal Farm
PJay- No, not much difference.
Jane Doe has dropped her lawsuit, again. A journalist asked earlier about why this story wasn’t getting more coverage noted that they give a lot more credence to accusations when the accuser is willing to come forward and give their name, and when there’s corroboration, as was the case with the groping / sexual harassment stories. People Magazine summarizes the long list of accusations.
PJay: the Republican Party seems pretty weak, as it was unable to prevent Trump from basically launching a hostile takeover. There’s some major policy differences between Clinton and Trump, too. Also of interest: if Clinton wins, the US will likely have divided government, as the Republicans will still control the House. If Trump wins, the US will have unified government: Trump will have a Republican Senate and House.
Here’s one vote for divided government. Every time a faction gets dominant, it does stupid and greedy things.