Jack and Bobby Kennedy were charismatic, larger-than-life political figures. Following their deaths, Ted, the last of the brothers, inherited the legacy. Following generations of Kennedys have been lesser figures. Several are lawyers. Some have dabbled in politics with modest results. Others entered the media, charitable foundations and the non-profit sector. There's hardly a secretary, insurance salesman, corporate executive, retailer, stock broker or soldier among them.
Ironically, this is the progeny of Joseph P. Kennedy, the family patriarch. The son of a humble Boston saloonkeeper, Joe was an ambitious, enterprising, hardnosed scrapper who married well and amassed a fortune in banking and shipbuilding, to say nothing of bootlegging during Prohibition. Unlike most of us who are forced to deal with mundane necessities like earning a living, inheritors of wealth (like the Kennedys) are relieved of that concern. Of course, they haven't taken a personal poverty oath but their gratification comes not from producing income and wealth themselves but from redistributing the fruits of other people's production. I call this the Kennedy Syndrome.
I'm no opponent of wealth. I've tried to accumulate some of my own from what's left after the tax collector's cut. Perhaps, as one who started without any, I have a greater appreciation for those who earn it than the Kennedys. And that's the fatal flaw of those afflicted with the Kennedy Syndrome. As compassionate do-gooders, they sympathize with the needy. That's commendable. But they have a blind spot in their inability to empathize with hard-working, industrious, risk- taking, entrepreneurial Americans who are the driving force behind our market economy and the creators of new wealth.
I remember hearing a talk once at a retreat that went something like this: "Some people like to sit on their back porch drinking a Martini and feeling bad for the poor, starving, godless natives in Africa, but their won't go over an talk to their next door neighbor because he has to wear a colostomy bag. This gives him an unpleasant smell, so it's much more pleasant to keep thinking about the natives in Africa, maybe even giving some money to charity to help them out." This is what comes to mind when I think of this Kennedy Syndrome, except that Ted Kennedy wanted to give someone else's money to the abstract poor. Rosen aptly quotes Mark Twain: "To be good is noble. To tell other people to do good is even nobler and much less trouble."
And I'm glad Rosen points out how self-indulgent the whole redistribution project is and how people like the Kennedys use it wrongly in an attempt to "redeem" themselves and their opulent playboy lifestyles. Maybe Teddy Kennedy wouldn't have felt the need to play Robin Hood in the Senate if he weren't so busy playing Don Juan in the nearby environs. I loved the conclusion, especially the WFB quote on idealism.
The appetite of do-gooders to dispense public largesse with the property of others is insatiable. But piling one social program on another runs up government spending to unsustainable levels. There are limits to the taxes you can impose on productive citizens. After you've soaked the rich, the middle class will necessarily get soaked as well. Government borrowing to finance budget deficits inescapably crowds out private sector investment, undermining the source of societal wealth. In the words of William F. Buckley, Jr., "Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive."
No comments:
Post a Comment