Income inequality is a strange obsession, at least to the extent the obsessives focus their policy responses on trying to adjust the condition of the top 1% rather than improving the opportunities of everyone else...Instead of the Times and the other elitists who talk smack about those poor fellows at Goldman Sachs, Jenkins might have directed his disdain at the overwhelming majority of Americans who now want to soak the rich.
One factor is a certain human soul-sickness that's impossible to put a constructive gloss on. Why is the New York Times disproportionately given over to cataloging the consumption of the rich in a tone even more cringing for its pretending to be snarky? Why do some of our dreariest journalists spend all their time writing about Goldman Sachs, except to associate themselves with the status object they attack in order to raise their own status?
That he didn't shows that even dim toffs such as he know the jig is up. Though the awful legacy of the Reagan years still plagues us in many respects, at least people seem to be getting over the bizarre delusion, widespread in that era, that the hyper-wealthy view them any differently than the kings of yore viewed peasants or livestock. Where once, for example, a lot of normal folks who should have known better were genuinely interested in the views and amours of Donald Trump, his recent Presidential campaign only excited the sympathy of the sort of rightwing buffoons who think Holman W. Jenkins is really giving the redistributionists what-for. Jenkins' column is not meant to convince anyone, but to comfort rich-bastard apologists in a lonely time.
Accordingly, the upcoming election will be about socialism, the unfair advantages enjoyed by African-Americans, and Obama eating dog meat as a boy.