Democrats and Wealth
In 1997, I caught up with my former university roommate, who has been a lifelong Republican. When I told him that I had gotten a job that was paying $70,000 a year, he started questioning how I can be well-off and a Democrat at the same time. In fact, there are many reasons why someone can be both well-off and a Democrat.
What has not been stated neary enough in public debate is that rightful liberal stance is not against people being wealthy. Rather the intelligent Democrat realizes that private sector prosperity owes much to the public sector. Science - a government-funded endeavor - is at the root of all technology, which means that it is at the root of all prosperity. Projects such as the Interstate and the Internet provide an infrastructure for business to do its work. Education - a government-funded endeavor - makes people employable outside the manual sector. And government protection for property rights allows there to be private property at all.
Historically, Democrats have been good for the economy. America boomed hugely under both Clinton and Kennedy; and its worst economic crises came under Republicans Hoover and Bush Jr. The interests of business and the interests of the economy are not in all cases the same; and there have been many leaders who identified with the business interests who were terrible for the economy, not to mention the worker.
There are people who believe that one should vote his self-interest and only his self-interest. I find this stance to be extremely short-sighted. I have been in upper income bracket; I never had problem paying upper income bracket taxes. That is because I consider the interests of the country and of the world as much as I consider my own interests. By the same token, I have remained in support of international economy even in the last decade, when much of my industry had been outsourced and I had trouble finding employment. And the more people consider such things when voting, the wiser will be electoral choices that they make.
Not too long ago, a Republican man told me, "Become a Republican and become wealthy; stay a Democrat and remain poor." What was this man's job? A courier. What he did not say was that in recent elections, the wealthier parts of America have voted Democratic, and the poorer parts of America have voted Republican. Clearly by the "money talks, bullshit walks" standard, most contemporary Republicans can be told to take a hike.
So no, one does not have to be poor or to hate wealth in order to vote Democratic. What one does need to do is give a damn and have a clue. Not only is private sector prosperity owed to a very large extent to activities of the government, but economic interest is not the sole interest and there is such a thing as human interest as well. And the way in which the nation takes care of the old people, the children and those who can't take care of themselves says vast things about the nation's character.
I have known quite a few highly accomplished individuals, and most of them were Democrats. They were nowhere close to being losers or parasites; they were winners and high contributors in every way that counts. Republicans do not own prosperity, and they should not be allowed to get away with claims that they own prosperity. Prosperity has many different contributors, and a very large number of these contributors vote Democratic.