Last December, the Democratic National Committee released an attack ad against Mitt Romney that blatantly painted him as "simply out of touch." This appears to be the theme of the Democratic agenda. Liberals summarily equate wealth with a lack of empathy for the average person. While this rhetoric might resonate well in today's precarious economic times - and might be especially palatable to those who have lost significant resources over the last few years - it is important to understand that such assessments are shrouded in hypocrisy.
How can the Obamas and other high-profile Democrats, who are feted at $40,000 per plate fundraisers in $20 million townhouses and sport Bergdorf's finest new ensembles, genuinely paint Romney and other successful Republicans as "out of touch" by virtue of their lifestyles?
The sanctimony of this tactic must be confronted, for the system of automatically identifying financial success with elitism or apathy not only permeates politics but also fosters unwarranted stereotypes of people working in the business world.
In terms of political tactics, casting one's opponent as disconnected to the general public is savvy. During an election season plagued by continued high unemployment and stagnant wages, the average voter might begrudge someone worth an estimated $250 million who built his fortune in the oft vilified field of private equity. This sensationalism is quite dangerous, for it generates assumptions and conclusions that are not supported by facts. Too often do we accept the end result without questioning the process. Yes, there are many successful Republicans - Romney being the most famous - who are affluent because of their success in business and finance. However, this material wealth does not totally disconnect them from the concerns of the average worker.
Furthermore, many of these individuals have worked hard to succeed in school and in industry, even if they were raised in fortunate circumstances. Romney graduated with top honors as a Baker Scholar from Harvard Business School and earned his Juris Doctor cum laude from Harvard Law School. After working at Bain and Company, he started Bain Capital with two other partners and led it to become a highly successful, well-respected private equity firm. This team may have never engaged in blue-collar labor, but they know what it feels like to work a 12-hour day. They know the exhaustion that comes with challenging their mental faculties in a robust manner and stressing over professional endeavors.
At Brown we have begun to question whether too many students pursue finance and business. I firmly believe negative characterizations of boardroom success have skewed this discussion.
In a Herald column this spring, Rebecca McGoldrick '12 bemoaned Brown graduates' attraction to finance, which she called "an industry whose social credentials are spotty at best" ("Feeling the brain drain, April 26). Sadly, this sweeping condemnation neglects the many millions of dollars that Wall Street firms donate to charity. Between January 2009 and December 2011, Goldman Sachs donated approximately $900 million to nonprofit organizations .
Central to my point is that Brown prizes individualism and acceptance of others' ideas, interests and backgrounds. Students who celebrate Brown's embrace of intellectual diversity should not dissuade their peers from seeking a specific career path. And yes, banking, consulting and entrepreneurship are quite respectable and have produced many business, social and political leaders. The same students who say we should respect all of our peers' choices - even if we do not agree with them - should not discourage a career on Wall Street because it does not emanate much "warmth" or because they fear it promotes greed. Doing so is duplicitous.
Successful businesspeople likely understand the duties and concerns of employees at differing levels of a company's hierarchy. Many industry leaders have risen from lower positions and have an appreciation for the meaning of professional and personal growth. Even Donald Trump witnessed dramatic vacillations in his own career and has spent over three decades amassing the collection of high-end properties for which he is known. It is implausible to conclude that a person is "out of touch" or apathetic simply because he holds a lucrative investment portfolio.
Interestingly, we are not heralded with such conclusions about athletes or actors who have built multi-million dollar fortunes. Is this because we do not want to mar classic pastimes or films that millions of Americans enjoy watching? Is it perhaps easier to target a field such as finance whose connection to money is much plainer? This may be so, but we should hold actors to the same standards as we do bankers.
This paradigm is especially true for liberal advocates of political correctness and unconditional acceptance who enjoy the same perks as the millionaire and billionaire conservatives they resent. The last time I checked, the Huffington Post - an outfit that fawns over the liberals' "genuine" concern for the impoverished - gushed about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's penchant for Armani. On the other hand, that site was quick to highlight the costs of Cindy McCain's wardrobe four years ago. I certainly don't have a problem with someone wearing $800 Jimmy Choo shoes - just please don't sport them while writing off others who do the same as "out of touch."
Elizabeth Fuerbacher '14 believes in celebrating rather than condemning success. She can be reached at elizabeth_fuerbacher@brown.edu.
