“Trustfund Buster”: Michael Barone on the “trustfund left”
We’ve all seen the trustfund types in action. They aren’t a new phenomenon– but as Michael Barone points out, their power and influence has grown within the Democratic Party. (Thanks to RCP.)
Excerpt:
Who are the trustfunders? People with enough money not to have to work for a living, or not to have to work very hard. People who can live more or less wherever they want. The “nomadic affluent,” as demographic analyst Joel Kotkin calls them.
These people tend to be very liberal politically. Aware that they have done nothing to earn their money, they feel a certain sense of guilt. At the elite private or public high schools they attend, and even more at their colleges and universities, they are propagandized about the evils of capitalism and globalization, and the virtues of environmentalism and pacifism. Patriotism is equated with Hiterlism.
Barone uses Colorado as one of several examples of “trustfund clusters” providing significant vote margins for Democrats:
Where Democrats had a good year in 2004 they owed much to trustfunders. In Colorado, they captured a Senate and a House seat and both houses of the legislature. Their political base in that state is increasingly not the oppressed proletariat of Denver, but the trustfunder-heavy counties that contain Aspen (68 percent for Kerry), Telluride (72 percent) and Boulder (66 percent).
What’s the downside to voters with money and time? Barone concludes with this:
The good news for Democrats is that they have found a new source of votes and money. The bad news is that an important part of their core constituency has the characteristic that the British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin ascribed to the press, “power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.”
But the key point Barone makes is the trustfunders’ guilt.
UPDATE: Comment 7 rounds out Barone’s point. If you read the Barone article, you’ll see he has done his usual good job of “close voting analysis” and is looking at “economic clusters” of voters. There is a little bit of hype to this, of course. No debate: Repubs have trustfunders. What Barone is looking at is a “deep pockets voter/activist” that is having real policy impact in the Democratic Party.
Who are the trustfunders? People with enough money not to have to work for a living, or not to have to work very hard. YOU MEAN LIKE PRESIDENT BUSH????????
Comment by Patti — 3/21/2005 @ 8:41 am
No, no. President Bush is a Republican! These “trustfunders” are elitists. They went to schools like Yale and stuff. It’s all different.
Comment by Pug — 3/21/2005 @ 9:04 am
Barone’s dead on about Colorado. Three trustfunders/internet gurus bought the Colorado House and Senate last year by donating millions to Democratic candidates (hmmm, Maria Cantwell anyone or maybe Jon Corzine). He left out the balance that has been provided by successful, Republicans that have left California because they’re fed up by what’s going on out there. Unfortunately, most of them aren’t donating to Republican causes. BTW, the trustfunders we have here in Colorado don’t go to Yale or any Ivy League school. They tend to be dropout slackers that work at the ski areas till the trust fund kicks in and then they just ski….
Comment by Bunny Slippers — 3/21/2005 @ 9:20 am
Knowing a few of these types myself — guilt is the motivation, but the bigger problem is naivite. They operate with the assumption that wealth is a measure of luck, not effort. Anyone who’s consistently defying the odds is cheating.
Comment by McGroarty — 3/21/2005 @ 10:10 am
What’s the point of this post anyway? It seems to be trying to paint a negative view of this onto the Dems, but what’s the point? The Repubs have plenty of trustfund donators I’m sure. The original article is pretty ridiculous too. There’s no specifics, just someone trying to insinuate a negative in the Dems. It’s just another weak attempt to try and paint the Dems as THE party for the wealthy, when really they’re only a little under half like that. The Repubs are the party to turn to for favors for the rich.
Comment by Losing Faith — 3/21/2005 @ 12:07 pm
So the Repubicans get votes from the Christians, and then they pass laws - repeal taxes on inherited income, divident, etc. - to benefit the Democrats? THAT’S what’s going on here? The Republican leadership is working for the DEMCRATS???
Comment by Dave Johnson — 3/21/2005 @ 12:07 pm
I think a valid point that can be made from this post is a variation of the old “give a man a fish” adage: Anytime you do something for someone which they are capable of doing themselves, instead of them earning it, it hurts them. Note that the majority of large-sum lottery winners are financially ruined by their winnings in a short amount of time. The result of trustfunders and other found (i.e. not earned) wealth is that they a) attribute the accumulation of wealth to luck rather than work, since they didn’t earn it themselves; and b) feel guilty for the wealth they have and therefore c) vote for liberal politicians who seek to redistribute the wealth of the “evil”, “lucky” free-enterprisers since they don’t believe anyone actually earned their wealth, since they themselves didn’t. Incidentally, broke people often attribute wealth to luck or evil greed, but for the opposite reason: since they are working hard at their job all their lives (note- being an employee, they not personally engaged in the free-enterprise system) and somehow the union has failed to make them independently wealthy, they conclude that wealth is for the lucky or the greedy. And again, vote for liberal politicians who seek to redistribute the wealth of the “evil”, “lucky” free-enterprisers.
Comment by Kevin B. — 3/21/2005 @ 12:43 pm
Kevin B.–well said. An attorney-friend told me trust funders are the most screwed-up clients he gets because they have little frame of reference for what they have and thus make bad decisions over and over again. He did say that if you can stand em, they make great repeat clients because they need the advice so badly. As for the estate tax, it seems to me we fought a revolution over double taxation and estate taxes are a present-day form of that. Tell me, after working and saving after tax dollars for a lifetime, why should the government receive as much as half of those savings? What did they do to earn it? I’ve never understood why estate taxes are morally acceptable, but I’d love to be enlightened (and notice that I don’t make the same distinction you do as to whether its a Democrat or Republican issue, estate taxes are just plain wrong).
Comment by Bunny Slippers — 3/21/2005 @ 2:43 pm
So the point is that all trustfunders are idiots and therefore they make bad decisions by giving to “the Left”. Well, I guess since it’s just throwing out unfounded opinions, there’s nothing really to debate.
Comment by Losing Faith — 3/21/2005 @ 3:38 pm
Losing Faith, No one has said that all trust funders are idiots or that giving to the Left is a bad decision (I might argue its not the best one…). The fact that you want to launch into hyperbole says something, though. I spoke about personal experience and no, it doesn’t prove anything. I do know trust fund babys that work their rears off. Living in Colorado though (near Boulder) and with relatives in Durango–two trust fund hot beds–my personal exerience bears out that Barone is far more on target than off. The truth is that those who work for what they have are far more in touch with its value than those who don’t and are far less likely to hand it over to the government for redistribution. If we’re wrong than tell us why. I’m tired of the fuming without substance from some on the Left. To quote Winston Churchill, “If you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you don’t have a heart. If you’re not a conservative when you’re older, you don’t have a brain.”
Comment by Bunny Slippers — 3/21/2005 @ 4:07 pm
Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that Colorado is being used as the liberal trustfund hotbed when its latest Republican Senate candidate inherited all his wealth? C’mon, everybody tell me how hard Peter works as ViceChairman of Coors. Right.
Comment by Steve — 3/21/2005 @ 6:49 pm
I’m still just trying to determine the point of the article and thread. Mostly the article seems to be wanting to associate trustfunders with the left and establish that point as bad by belittling people that inherit money. It’s all insinuation too, there’s nothing factual. It’s someone trying to create a perception with ranting opinion. I object to that method when I notice it from the left or right.
Comment by Losing Faith — 3/22/2005 @ 8:37 am
Since all op-eds are just that–opinions–you’re arguing just to argue. In case you missed this fact, 56% of Colorado voted for Bush. Take out the liberal hotbeds that Barone names and that percentage goes up–the working folks (and in fact, the poorest counties out here) voted strongly for Bush. That’s generally true throughout the country. So agree or disagree about trust fund babies, polling shows that the richest and the poorest vote democrat. We know why the poor do, but why do the rich? A coworker of mine who makes nearly $1 MM year is a staunch democrat and its clearly because of the guilt he feels for being successful.
Comment by Bunny Slippers — 3/22/2005 @ 9:21 am
it’s cool i like it
Comment by Davis — 3/22/2005 @ 9:44 am
Please. There is no data whatsoever for these claims. In order to prove his argument, Barone needs evidence that the areas he cites: A) have significant trustfunder populations, and B) those trustfunders BOTH vote for Democrats AND make up a significant portion of the electorate. His purported “argument” really boils down to a stupid ad-hom: Dems get money from undeserving traitors who hate America. But: A) it is undeniable that the GOP has a ton of wealthy donors. I bet at least some are trustfunders (see, this is why data is good) and Bush didn’t exactly work for his wealth B) Barone cites no evidence for this silliness about trustfunders hating America, etc, etc. Citing a Huntington book doesn’t cut it. C) Barone cites no evidence that Democratic trustfunders’ political preferences are motivated by guilt D) Barone cites no evidence that trustfunders are major democratic contributors Note to those who disagree: 1. citing two books is not evidence,esp. without any particulars 2. referring to Ward Chruchhill (almsot certainly the source for the Hitlerism reference) proves precisely nothing 3. your personal experiences and advice from your friends do not constitute reliable evidence that can be used to support a general proposition, such as the one Barone espouses. Barone’s article represents a frequent problem in public discourse - the lack of standards for being taken seriously…yes, we should all entertain different views, but one needs to demonstrate a certain amount of seriousness before one can be considered a player in the larger political debate. I don’t mean credentials, I mean the demonstrated ability to make intellectually honest arguments grounded in fact.
Comment by Paul Kerr — 3/22/2005 @ 6:35 pm