Can any of the candidates relate to working men and women?
I stumbled across a list this morning that ranked presidents by wealth, and I was surprised.
Now, I realize that we all have this fascination with money and power.
And I also realize the inequity of our situation: that the guilty, rich, and powerful are treated more fairly than the innocent poor; that very few, if any, of those running really give a tinker’s damn about the unwashed masses.
Still, the ranking of presidents by personal wealth piqued my curiosity.
The list, put together by Forbes magazine, adjusted then-dollars to 2016 dollars and represents an accumulation of lifetime wealth.
At the top of the list, of course, was our current president, who they estimate at having amassed $3.1 billion. At best, it’s a guess, because Trump holdings, mostly through real estate investments and endorsements, are private, and we have never seen his tax returns, so there is no way of knowing exactly how the real figures line up with his reported wealth.
At the bottom of that list was Harry Truman, who ended up with less than $1 million.
But the in-between?
Let’s just say that wealth has nothing to do, really, with performance in office.
But it is an interesting snapshot.
George Washington, with $587 million, was second on the list, followed by Thomas Jefferson ($236 million), Theodore Roosevelt ($139 million), Andrew Jackson ($132 million), James Madison ($113 million), Lyndon Johnson ($109 million), Herbert Hoover ($83 million), Bill Clinton ($75 million), and Franklin D. Roosevelt ($66 million.)
The bottom 10 started with Warren Harding ($1 million) followed by James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, and Truman, who all earned less than $1 million.
I was very surprised that John F. Kennedy landed smack dab in the middle with $10 million, but his annotated listing pointed out that the Kennedy family was worth $2 billion, and he had not inherited any money yet. Plus, having died in office, he had no chance for a lucrative book deal, board memberships, or speaking fees — like Clinton and many others — who made fortunes after leaving the Oval Office.
The rankings have nothing to do with smarts or honesty, either.
The top two include a guy who was noted for telling the truth no matter the consequence and another who is a constant stranger to truth.
We know intelligence is not a major factor. In a ranking of the most intelligent U.S. leaders, about half fit into the upper reaches of wealth while the others languished at the bottom.
The era of their presidencies also doesn’t seem to matter.
The most telling thing about the list is that for the most part, none of these guys lived paycheck to paycheck like their constituents. They were all out of touch with the average American, at least when it came to paying the bills, even at the birth of the nation.
Despite all that spin about how these were men dedicated to public service, the fact is these were men who found a pretty good gig and hung on for the ride to earnings most who voted for them will never achieve.
And, while a few — very few — did work themselves up from middle class or impoverished means, a taste of money and power led to an appetite for more money and power regardless of party affiliation or personal politics.
The Democrats aren’t pinching pennies with only two of the top 10 contenders looking for the nod having a net worth of less than $1 million, according to the Forbes report.
Pete Buttigieg, the Indiana mayor, is worth a paltry $100,000 while Julian Castro has done a little better with $700,000.
The remainder are all part of the millionaire’s club with Elizabeth Warren at $12 million, Joe Biden at $9 million, Kamala Harris at $6 million, Beto O’Rourke at $4 million, Bernie Sanders at $2.5 million, Amy Klobuchar at $2 million, Cory Booker at $1.5 million, and Andrew Yang at $1 million.
Again, I fail to see how they can relate to the needs and desires of their constituents.
I understand that most of us simply cannot afford to run for office at any level. We have jobs to work, families to support.
Still, we equate wealth with intelligence or leadership or any of hundreds of other qualities few of the rich claim. For those so inclined, there is a biblical verse that clearly takes the charm out of stockpiling cash: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,” we are told.
Yet we seem to put a lot of stock in people with deep pockets.
Think of yourselves.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, I would say most of you are middle class.
Can you relate to the plight of the poor?
Do you understand their circumstances?
Can you relate to their struggle?
Do you look down upon them because they don’t have quite as much money as you?
My guess is “yes” to at least one of those judgments.
“Those people” must have done something wrong.
“Those people” must not be very bright.
“Those people” must be lazy.
As we dive deeper into the political season, you will hear a lot about the glass ceiling for female politicians, but what about the glass ceiling for the poor, who work just as hard as we do but have not been blessed with equivalent riches?
There are cultural and socioeconomic factors at play; there are life circumstances that could hit any one of us at any time; there is the loss of spirit when members of the workforce see others profiting from their efforts.
We can’t all be recipients of that lucky break.
We can’t all inherit riches.
We can’t all marry, or in some cases divorce, well.
Still, we deserve a voice.
Tragically, our voice goes unheard by the moneychangers who occupy the den of thieves in Washington, D.C., in our state capitols, in our local councils and commissions.
They hide their fangs behind masks, tell us “I get it” or “I feel your pain” when they really don’t.
And they expect us to buy it.
Well, I’m not buying it, and neither should you.
The 2020 presidential race is getting its legs, the candidates are off and running, and sides are being drawn.
The only thing that is certain is that no matter what happens on Nov. 3, 2020, we will still have no real voice.
Peace.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
