When billionaires support Clinton in large numbers, it can’t be because they are all virtuous.
So many billionaires support Clinton that they present as a special challenge. According the New York Times, she must use them in her campaign against “income inequality.”
Warren E. Buffett (known as the Oracle of Omaha) was easy. The low-key billionaire has been at the forefront of efforts to rewrite the tax code so that he does not pay a lower rate than his secretary. But he did not create the behemoth of Berkshire Hathaway, which holds significant stakes in Coca-Cola, American Express and Wells Fargo, among others, by always being nice.
On Monday, he unleashed on her Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, comparing him to Senator Joseph McCarthy (“Have you no decency, sir?” Mr. Buffett said, quoting a famous rejoinder to the senator) and mocking his bankruptcies.
Meg Whitman, the technology executive and former Republican candidate for governor in California, said she would hold a fund-raiser to help elect Mrs. Clinton. Reed Hastings, the outspoken chief executive of Netflix, and Eric Schmidt, of Google fame, have both expressed support for Mrs. Clinton’s technology and business plans.
Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor, seemed more eager to cut Mr. Trump down to size than to build up Mrs. Clinton. “I’m a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one!” he said in his address at the Democratic National Convention last month.
Mark Cuban, the co-host of ABC’s “Shark Tank” and owner of the Dallas Mavericks, campaigned with Mrs. Clinton in Pittsburgh on Saturday, and belittled Mr. Trump, calling him a “jagoff.”
It is possible that billionaires are more likely than the rest of us to lose some money for a “good cause”—in their own minds. That is because you and I are struggling to stay afloat. They’re trying to decided which mansion to live in this month.
But if they lack a need for more money they more than make up for it in the need to view themselves as benefactors to the common man. Thus, they exude paternalism and self-congratulatory moralism. They don’t understand why the rest of us don’t want to depend on their beneficent activism.
And they don’t even notice when we suffer more than they do as a result of the politicians they purchase.
Here’s an example from Canada where a rich guy “volunteered” for higher taxes and cost a couple of thousand working stiffs their jobs: