Why Democracy Needs the Rich

“Why Democracy Needs the Rich

 

By John O. McGinnis

 

Encounter, 224 pages, $32.99

 

Let me tell you about the very rich," wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald. "They are different from you and me." Sure, Ernest Hemingway supposedly countered: "They have more money." But to many today, that is only the most obvious difference. While the ultrawealthy had a romantic allure for Fitzgerald, they are now more likely to seem problematic. Many believe that billionaires own too much, earn far more than they deserve, have undue influence over the government and advance their own personal interests at the expense of the public's.

 

Politicians call for raising their taxes and question their right to exist. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont sees billionaires as a "manifestation of a corrupt political system." Zohran Mamdani, the mayor of New York City, says he doesn't "think we should have billionaires." Vice President JD Vance claims the wealthy leaders of big tech have "too much power."

 

The publication of John O. McGinnis's "Why Democracy Needs the Rich" comes at an opportune moment. A law professor at Northwestern University and former U.S. Justice Department official, Mr. McGinnis seeks to defend the ultrawealthy from the growing number of accusations leveled against them. Although incomplete, Mr. McGinnis's argument deserves to be taken seriously.

 

Who are the rich? If they're defined by wealth, Mr. McGinnis would include people in the top 0.1% of asset-holders -- $61 million and above -- as "truly rich." What matters to the author isn't how much they are worth, but how free they are to express their views, take risks and support innovative activities.

 

A highly paid corporate executive or celebrity isn't necessarily immune to pressures from the marketplace, government regulators or adoring fans. However, someone who has amassed a vast fortune, especially through entrepreneurial skill, Mr. McGinnis argues, has greater freedom to act with impunity or champion unpopular causes. That makes the rich especially valuable in a representative democracy like the U.S., where policy is normally shaped by the play of public opinion, competition among interest groups and the weight of a permanent bureaucracy. The wealthy -- and the organizations or politicians they assist -- have the means to provide alternative perspectives, typically rooted in the practical realities of building a business rather than in intellectual theories, media stereotypes or government rules.

 

"In a vibrant, capitalist republic," Mr. McGinnis writes, "the rich are more likely to contribute positively, driving breakthroughs and supporting the fluidity that keeps a democratic society dynamic and open to adaptation." Instead of manipulating government for their own narrow interests, the rich can add a distinctively independent-minded, public-spirited and efficacious set of voices to the national debate.

 

The ultrawealthy, Mr. McGinnis says, also perform a variety of important services for American democracy through philanthropy. Their charitable giving supports a range of civic associations that train citizens in the skills and habits needed for self-government. It underwrites the sorts of elite cultural and educational institutions that Alexis de Tocqueville and others believed an egalitarian democracy would have difficulty nurturing.

 

 Importantly, because of their willingness to take risks, the rich are more likely to invest in a variety of breakthrough enterprises -- such as artificial intelligence and space travel -- that might be too daunting and costly to attract people with smaller fortunes.

 

Mr. McGinnis contends that billionaires, far from being a threat to American democracy, can be essential to sustaining and improving it. But he devotes too little attention to examining whether they really are doing so.

 

As Mr. McGinnis acknowledges, not all rich people agree about what a liberal democracy needs. Some, such as Elon Musk or Peter Thiel, favor protecting individual rights and property, while others, such as George Soros or Tom Steyer, support collectivist approaches. This diversity of views, Mr. McGinnis maintains, is advantageous since it adds to the range of ideas before the public. But judging from recent trends in voting, the wealthy are becoming more like-minded -- and more left-leaning.

 

Because of their business and interests in worldly affairs, Mr. McGinnis claims, the rich tend to be well-informed on policy matters. However, he offers no support for this sweeping assertion (or to refute contrary evidence, such as the chronic banality of the so-called Davos consensus). He argues that elite higher education has become too ideological and impractical but doesn't reconcile those criticisms with the fact that a large share of the wealthy -- and the advisers they lean on for their political and philanthropic pursuits -- are products of it.

 

Mr. McGinnis overstates the importance of giving by the rich as well. While such entrepreneurs as Mr. Musk and Jeff Bezos are visionaries in their business affairs, their philanthropic efforts have so far been pedestrian. Despite receiving a lower share of their total donations from middle-income households, most civic associations still depend more on contributions of money and time from ordinary Americans than from very wealthy ones.

 

Public attitudes toward the very rich have undoubtedly been souring. A 2021 Pew Research study showed that 29% of Americans now view people with billion-dollar fortunes as "a bad thing for the country." Nonetheless, a Harris poll two years ago reported that 60% of Americans -- and more than 70% of millennials -- still wanted to become billionaires. Mr. McGinnis's book provides a timely reminder of why achieving that goal could be personally rewarding and good for American democracy as well.

 

---

 

Mr. Lenkowsky is a professor emeritus at Indiana University.” [1]

 

1. A Wealth Of Ideas. Lenkowsky, Leslie.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 18 Feb 2026: A15.