Why Plutocrats Are Rallying to Trump

[Stevicus]

Why Plutocrats Are Rallying to Trump

Civic lessons won’t sway America’s oligarchs. Instead, we need forthright economic populism to bring them to heel.

www.thenation.com

Civic lessons won’t sway America’s oligarchs. Instead, we need forthright economic populism to bring them to heel.

The article starts off by mentioning that Trump's poll numbers are down and that current polls put him in a dead heat with Biden.

But this bad news for Trump, the BBC reports, has been countered by another development: “Ultra-wealthy Republican donors are rallying behind former US President Donald Trump following his historic trial and criminal conviction.” Indeed, for some tycoons, Trump’s courtroom troubles are reasons for supporting him. For Shaun Maguire, a partner in the powerful Silicon Valley firm Sequoia Capital, Trump’s long list of indictments was a “radicalizing event.”

“Bluntly, that’s part of why I’m supporting him,” Maguire wrote in a long post on X (formerly known as Twitter) announcing a $300,000 donation to Trump’s campaign. “I believe our justice system is being weaponized against him.” Aside from Maguire, the BBC lists other extremely wealthy Trump supporters, including casino owner Miriam Adelson, hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, fracking pioneer Harold Hamm, and Blackstone Group CEO Steve Schwarzman. Some of these moguls, notably Schwarzman, had previously been critical of Trump for his instigation of an attack on the Capitol as part of scheme to overturn the 2020 election results. But in recent months, they and other members of the 1 percent have decided to put their money on Trump. As a result, Joe Biden’s once formidable financial lead over Donald Trump is rapidly shrinking. In the month of April—for the first time in this election cycle—Trump started raking in more money than Biden.

In response to the rich rallying to Trump, The Economist published a polemic by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman arguing that investors should realize that Trump’s return to the White House would undermine the rule of law, an essential prerequisite for capitalist health. Hoffman acknowledges the “lamentable” reality “that a growing number of America’s corporate and financial leaders are opening their wallets for Donald Trump.”

According to Hoffman, many of Trump’s well-heeled supporters are motivated by a mixture of authoritarianism, fear, and greed

In other words, a significant portion of America’s economic elite are either autocrats, cowards, or so single-mindedly rapacious that they are indifferent to the survival of democracy. But if that’s the case, then nothing is less relevant than the type of civic lesson Hoffmann is presenting on the necessity of the rule of law. Trump’s wealthy supporters are not going to be convinced by the need to preserve democracy, since they are as inherently autocratic as Trump himself. Unlike Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Donald Trump will never be a traitor to his class. He is, in truth, an accurate embodiment of it.

The article points out a growing trend of autocratic tendencies among the American and global rich:

The autocratic tendencies of the American and global rich were well documented in a recent New Republic article by Ken Silverstein about a private WhatsApp group called Off Leash created by military contractor Erik Prince. The group consists of both business people and right-wing pundits—mostly in the United States, but also with a significant cluster in Israel and the United Arab Emirates as well as other countries. Silverstein received leaked conversations from Off Leash, which paint a dire picture of a cohort of militant and militarized aspiring autocrats.

Trump’s return to the White House would literally allow the wealthiest Americans to pocket trillions that would otherwise be used for public services. This simple material fact is enough to explain why the propertied class won’t listen to civic lessons about the toxicity of Trump. They are obscenely rich and Trump will help them stay that way. In fact, he’ll allow them to become even richer than they’d otherwise be.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton boasted, “I love having the support of real billionaires.” Clinton touted her support from Warren Buffett and Michael Bloomberg (who was given pride of place at the Democratic National Convention in both 2016 and 2020).

But the sad truth is that Trump himself has the support of many real billionaires—and for good reason: He upholds their class interests. If the Democrats really want to rally popular support, they’d do well to mothball Bloomberg and run on good old-fashioned economic populism.

They should "run on good old-fashioned economic populism." I think this should have been made clear back in 2016. The article also raises the point that the "civics lessons" aren't really working. These billionaires are sending Trump even more money after this trial.

What this appears to be is a battle of one group of billionaires vs. another group of billionaires, as the Democrats have support from some billionaires. An interesting point made earlier in the article was that FDR was a "traitor to his class," as he came from a wealthy family, yet implemented programs to help the lower classes.

So, what is the situation here? Do we have ostensibly "good billionaires," who use their power for good, kind of like Jedi Knights who use their powers to uphold democracy and law? On the other hand, we also appear to have "evil billionaires" who support autocracy and authoritarianism.

Are these "good billionaires" who support the Democrats "traitors to their class," as FDR was? Or have Democrats shown a greater interest in being willing to accommodate the interests and concerns of the upper class to gain their support? Would it be a better strategy for the Democrats to (as the article suggests) mothball the billionaires and go back to being the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Even if it means "betraying" the billionaire class?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, what is the situation here? Do we have ostensibly "good billionaires," who use their power for good, kind of like Jedi Knights who use their powers to uphold democracy and law? On the other hand, we also appear to have "evil billionaires" who support autocracy and authoritarianism.

Why would you find this surprising? I'm honestly not sure what you wish to debate.

 

[icehorse]

The article points out a growing trend of autocratic tendencies among the American and global rich:

Great OP.

I think we need to keep this message front and center until people start really getting it. We won't survive if we continue to allow our world to slide into the Kleptocracy that's already well underway.

 

[Stevicus]

Why would you find this surprising? I'm honestly not sure what you wish to debate.

One thing I'm not wishing to debate is your personal opinion about what you think I find surprising.

 

[Heyo]

So, what is the situation here? Do we have ostensibly "good billionaires," who use their power for good, kind of like Jedi Knights who use their powers to uphold democracy and law? On the other hand, we also appear to have "evil billionaires" who support autocracy and authoritarianism.

Just another one who can see only black and white. The "good" and "bad" billionaires are still a small minority. Most billionaires are ugly smart. They support candidates of both parties financially. That way, no matter who wins the election, they already have the government on their payroll.

 

[Stevicus]

Just another one who can see only black and white. The "good" and "bad" billionaires are still a small minority. Most billionaires are ugly smart. They support candidates of both parties financially. That way, no matter who wins the election, they already have the government on their payroll.

Still, there are those who like to pass off the notion that one side is "good" while the other side is "evil," even to the point of taking umbrage at the idea that both parties might be similar to each other. Since both sides are getting support from billionaires, this would imply a belief that some billionaires/aristocrats are "good" while others are "evil."

The article also suggested that FDR, whose liberal New Deal programs changed the face of the U.S. economy and ultimately led to the biggest boost in the U.S. standard of living ever seen, was a "traitor to his class." FDR's successors, who also went along with the Keynesian philosophy of the New Deal, might also be characterized similarly. This would suggest that capitalists and America's billionaire class ostensibly believe that the time of greatest economic boom in U.S. history was bad for capitalism and bad for the wealthy. This view was also encapsulated in Reagan's harsh rhetoric and criticisms against the economic policies and programs which preceded him. He wanted to undo all of the reforms of the previous decades and turn America back into a consumerist, corporatist, billionaires' paradise. And, as we saw with Clinton and ideological shifts in the Democratic Party, the Democrats were fully on board with this idea.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Just another one who can see only black and white. The "good" and "bad" billionaires are still a small minority. Most billionaires are ugly smart. They support candidates of both parties financially. That way, no matter who wins the election, they already have the government on their payroll.

Its not so much good vs bad. Its more about wise vs foolish (dangerously so).
And what you describe about billionaires being "smart", is better characterized as "cunning" or "conniving" (which is a short-term and self-service only, form of "smart").

The bottom line is that the difference of wisdom in their choices (as with most of humanity), is whether the outcomes they are trying to influence will benefit them in the short term (foolish) most often at the expense of the long term. Or are their actions going to bring about long-term, far-sighted good to the most people (most likely including themselves, and definitively their own offspring). This latter group would be described as "wise".
The autocrats and plutocratics are almost exclusively looking for short-term (dangerously foolish) gains for themselves alone (think tRump), without regard to whether it will lead to a war, or to stripping of resources, or destruction of a national or global economy; just as long as their very few royal persons have maids, cooks, and chauffeurs to drive their limos, as the irrelevant world burns around them. And they will very "smartly" utilize media and paid off politicians, to drive the emotional biases and buttons of the misled public to do their bidding.