|
|
|
|
|
|
by jacquesm
977 days ago
|
|
|
Well, you got that wrong, especially for her. I know some of these people and in fact they do see themselves holding high office as a public service. Their reasoning is something like this: I'm already wealthy, don't have to work for a living. But I can make myself useful by running for public office or by taking a crappy paycheck (by their standards) for some high level bureaucratic position and so make myself useful. And here are some helpful connections that will help me achieve that goal. And so they convince themselves that they are not in it for the money but merely for the public good, as wealthy people they are hard to bribe (somewhat true) and better this than loafing around doing nothing all day. Whether it is the best for society is another matter, but this is a fair representation of some of the people in those circles that I know. They would rather see it as a sacrifice than as them holding power for power's sake because that's not what you're supposed to do. It's loosely connected to Noblesse Oblige (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noblesse%20oblige ), as in that you should strive to do good deeds and to use your station in life wisely if you are wealthy or in a position of power (but then you first have to obtain a position of power...). |
|
|
Here's where you blew it. Wealthy people aren't immune to greed. The wealthier you are, the more wealth you wan to amass because that's what everyone else around you is doing.
I doubt Donald Trump got into politics because he got bored of being rich and became soooo interested in helping the common man. Wealthy people go into politics because politics means more power, more connections and networking, and ultimately more wealth.
Also, people born in opulent wealth have no idea of the struggles of the common man you're claiming they want to help. I doubt Ursula knows how much is the price of groceries, gas, electricity, plus the average wage of the common folk.