You want to make the big political career?
You have some choices to make, right? Or left?
Boies Penrose, Republican Senate boss of bosses in the years after the World War 1, gave to the business community the following pretty clear advice: “I believe in the division of labor. You send us to Congress; we pass laws under which you make money … and out of your profits you further contribute to our campaign funds to send us back again to pass more laws to enable you to make more money.”
Completely outdated: Too transparent, too risky.
We are in the age everybody can tweet and almost everybody blogs, and things go viral in a minute and everybody knows. And, by the way, nobody likes big business. We only like their products, we like those like addicts. And we hate the rich, who usually are the owners of the businesses that sell us the products we like. You will not get my vote if you link yourself with those guys the way Penrose proposed. And you may not get anybody else’s vote either, I am afraid.
Of course, a political career is expensive, you will need a lot of money. This is, still, something the rich do have plenty of. So here are the good news: You can get their money anyway. Maybe even more than what they would volunteer to give you!
Take the latest trend. Start a loud outcry on the inequality of this world. How rich the rich are, how much richer they are becoming. And that you are the one to do now something just. You announce you will tax their incomes. Or, even better, tax their fortunes. People love to hear this. I mean most of the people do, the rich may not. People in general suffer this acute just-world cognitive bias, social scientist will tell you. Their brains want order, want everything under control. Injustice is anything but order. It is a sign that things are going out of control.
If you first make those little brains afraid, telling them there is something they are losing, and then, giving them as remedy some nice-sounding promises of a future just world, they will follow you. And not only on Twitter.
French professors are really good at equality recipes. Some decades ago, an Asian young man came to study to Paris, took good notes of what was taught there, and went back to his country to apply it. His name was Pol Pot. He achieved equality to its utmost: Bones is all that is left of two million people in Cambodia's killing fields.
These days a new smart French professor appears at the equality front, making good money by selling a bestseller on the subject. Not that he comes with anything new. In Venezuela I learned a good saying for this kind of repeated findings: To discover the lukewarm water. Since the beginning of our civilization the rich get the bigger part. Almost 2000 years ago Jesus commented it [Matthew 13:12]. Even I dared, a year or so ago, to address the phenomenon with some memory fragments in my blog here [http://leuschner-en.blogspot.ro/2013/04/money-clumps.html].
This French professor did not look at the Fortune’s 500 list, with top richest of this world and updated regularly. He had a good reason for not doing so. On this list people get up and down, some out altogether, and that certainly is not any point he planned to make. Also, on the list are names you would not like to see there. I remember the last time I looked at it, appeared this ultra-old-and-marxist Caribbean caudillo in the higher rankings. Maybe under the not so wrong assumption that who controls the fortunes, owns them more or less personally. (See? This is the point you have to understand!) However, no no, monsieur le professeur did something else. He went to analyze decades of percentages. These are very revealing: A smaller getting percentage of rich people are owners of a higher percentage of the total wealth; time after time. With the obvious exception of this smaller getting percentage, nobody likes that. And exactly here, in the bigger getting percentage of the ones not liking that, is where the votes for your harvest are, Ms. or Mr. would be politician.
In a nutshell, this is what the professor tells you to do: tax the higher incomes with 80%; tax their fortunes annually with 10%.
If every government does this worldwide, he says, inequality is gone. Right he is. And clever also. Nobody, including himself I guess, believes a worldwide tax policy is possible. There will always be some islands or Alp valleys with special treatment for those that bring them money. So, should his theory not work out as predicted, he already build in a good excuse.
Our French friend went one step further, maybe too far. He put the inequality story into a pretty dramatic setting. Which of course is good for your political campaign, but not so for his academic success in the long run. Out of his data and stomach feeling, he cooked the apocalyptic and final demise of capitalism sometime to come. He is also not the first on this one. And, as all his predecessors did, he most probably will also fail with his prophecy, I am afraid. However, many love to hear the story again and again, so his book sells well.
For you, as politician, the set up is perfect. You now garnish your campaign with a few somethings and you will win the elections easily. Mainly, stress the point that you fight for equality. But also promise education, jobs, housing and health care for everybody. You finance that with the money you will take from the rich. And blame the rich for all imaginable evil. Call them agents of imperialism, capitalistic drones, or savage neoliberals.
After the campaign comes the implementation. This is the easy part. If you follow my advice, you may stay in power for over fifty years, or how long you live or like to govern. This is what you should do: Take everything from the rich and make everybody equal and happy. The exception could be you, your family, and some close friends. Don’t misunderstand me. You all may become happy too, and stay so. However, there is no reason you should become equal. You are the leader, leave this to the people.
You don’t need to do much social stuff, really. Put some kids before a school to sing something for the shots of the press cameras. However, never stop talking about your incredible social achievements.
Something strange will happen. At least, it did so far wherever this kind of recipes were applied.
You might really get some valuables from the rich. The total may look impressive, but be aware that you cannot run a country for long with this money. You basically killed the cow. So do not expect further milk. Eat the meat and have a good party. The economy very soon will start to struggle and eventually collapse. Business will go elsewhere, investments will not happen. There will only remain some money for marketing and publicity of your social promises, but not enough to realize them. You most probably will not even be able to maintain the social welfare you inherited from your right wing predecessors. This should not matter at all. People will love you. They will love your struggle for equality. They will love that you eliminated the rich. The international intellectuals will love you also. And, as nobody wants to see anything sad or bad in what he loves, you have no problem and will probably, without too much tricks, win the following elections also. If you do not believe me, ask Maduro.
However, I have to warn you: Do not get it wrong. Be radical. Should you be too prudent, the whole thing may turn sour. Example for this comes again from France. The actual president increased taxes for the rich. Some of them even said, “I depart, adieu” and moved eastward. So, apparently everything was done according to the book. However, the president quickly became tremendously unpopular. What happened?
Well, he was too cautious and too decent. He did not increase the taxes enough; far from it. He did not made enough noise about his social programs. And, instead of hiring all the jobless for any kind of overcrowded state institution, he did not know what to do with them.
And our French professor, what may he say about his president's mis-achievements? Well, there is always this build in pre-condition for success in his recipe, that the tax measures should be applied worldwide and not only punctually in a small Gallic place. So, I guess, the theory has a pretty good explanation for its failure in La Grande Nation.
