A couple of times in the last week I have been on radio to discuss whether a really wealthy person could ever truly understand the country that they are governing and the needs of the people within it. LBC asked me this question on Thursday. Times Radio did yesterday.
My answer to the question is that in theory there is no reason why not. It must be possible for a person with considerable wealth to have the empathy to understand the position of the person who does not enjoy that privilege.
I did, however, add two things. The first was that this understanding is not commonplace in my experience. I have, as a result of my work, met quite a number of very wealthy people. I have not really spotted that ability to be that empathic amongst almost any of them. More common was the lawyer, making approximately half a million a year, who sat in front of me once and assured me that "It's so hard to make ends meet, Richard".
The second point was that the exception seems to apply only where, despite their wealth, the person in question did not set store by that wealth, or rate it as what was important about them. In other words, the exceptional people had a deeply embedded personal philosophy that let them look beyond their own position to imagine not only what life might be like for those without their own good fortune, but also to imagine what could be done about their contrasting fortunes. These people were, I stress, the exceptions.
So could, in my opinion, a truly wealthy person be a successful prime minister? I reiterate that the answer has to be that it is possible. But reframe the question to ask can a person who espouses the accumulation of wealth, and who already enjoyed that privilege be a successful prime minister and my answer has to be that I do not think that possible. By definition, that person will think the person without wealth 'a loser' (as they would put it) and their empathy will be limited, at best. They will have chosen this position as an inherent foundation of their politics. Of course they cannot then ever really understand the position of the person who does not share their fortune, because they do not want to.
And that is the problem that the right-wing has.
But what is your opinion? A poll:
Can an ultra-wealthy person be a successful prime minister?
- Yes, but only if they can see beyond wealth as a measure of worth (56%, 290 Votes)
- No (39%, 201 Votes)
- Yes (3%, 17 Votes)
- I din't know, but show me the answers anyway (1%, 7 Votes)
- Yes, because wealth is a measure of their ability (0%, 1 Votes)
Total Voters: 516
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Yes but only if they don’t see wealth as a goal of life, but only as preferred, or a tool for helping others or society. See the example of Marcus Aurelius – regarding his wealth as owned by the society he served, and selling off palace treasures to pay for public health responses in a pandemic.
I am reminded of the person from a wealthy background I encountered at university in the eighties: “I can’t understand why poor people get mortgages. It’s much cheaper to just buy a house”.
You are right.
In my experience, very few become extremely wealthy without prioritizing it….. which ought to mean automatic disqualification from the job of PM. The exception (occasionally) is inherited wealth…. although that often comes with all sorts of other characteristics that might mean disqualification.
Indeed, virtually all the attributes required to get to be PM (grade A* at greasy pole climbing) should be a disqualification from the job!
It reminds me of an old boss (a very good one, I felt) who espoused all sorts of good things among his juniors….. that he never did when he was on the way up!
Why good? Integrity. He fired one of his top traders for racism towards a caddy on the golf course.
I know I can’t expect too much from our leaders – but I do expect integrity.
I would far rather see a leader with at least some experience of poverty, advised by people with such extreme wealth plus a record of having acted in the public interest. Representation is preferable to patronage.
Information from experience, information from empathy, information from data – how do these actually determine how someone will act? We need to explore this more.
It isn’t easy to work out what characteristics ARE needed for a successful Prime Minister, because there is a paucity of models to analyse. Churchill was the most revered Prime Minister of the last century, but even though he led Britain to ultimate success (along with allies) in the Second World War there were a lot of flaws along the way. And his return in peacetime was not a success. Labour supporters might point to Blair’s first term when there were indeed some impressive achievements – but dwarfed in memory by his subsequent belief in his own divinity and consequent poor judgement.
So I think the requirements for success in a Prime Minister will amount to quite a long person specification (to use the HR jargon) and since no one has met those fully in the past it seems unlikely we will get a PM soon that measures up on all accounts. Whatever personal means a candidate has it can’t simultaneously be similar to all the population being governed. As you say, more important is the ability to empathise with the situation of people in all strata of society and see the responsibility for doing the right thing for all of them; that might be difficult for the very wealthy but to be fair most politicians seem to find it hard. I guess you could argue that someone of median wealth (whatever that means) has less of a gap to bridge with empathy to understand the extremes, but in the end what matters more is their attitude to the responsibilities and a sense of public service rather than self-aggrandisement.
Un my experience most wealthy people are out of touch with reality and have probably never struggled to get to the end of the month ….
Wealth corrupts, great wealth corrupts greatly. There is also the problem that politicos are often self selecting – the last 13 years have shown how well that worked – couple that to wealth/great wealth and you have a disaster in the making. Sunak, is Johnson without so much lying but with the empathy-bypass needed by all tory politicos.
Privilege blinds us to empathy, and it’s not just the right wing, I’ve seen it in people from all walks of life. It’s not just political views, but extends to all aspects of life. I’ve also recognised privilege in myself as I’ve grown older, and assumptions I’ve made that have prejudiced my views.
I think that like many behaviours, empathy is learnt. If I was to point a finger of blame, it would be at the tabloids and much of the media who deliberately demonstrate that you can be judgemental without any responsibility or critical thinking. But that’s what sells papers.
I’ve come to think that the core beliefs and attributes that adults exhibit can be traced back to their parents and conversations around the dining room table, where and when they went to school and the peer group they found themselves with prior to adulthood.
It’s this foundation which shapes their subsequent lives and how they will be in their leadership role. For most people these conditions grow a set of ideological beliefs which they carry with them always.
So, can an ultra-wealthy person be a successful prime minister? When I was applying this sort of analysis to a list of potential Tory PM candidates in August 2022, of Rishi Sunak my notes say – “ very bright and has nothing to prove but will always err on the side of wealth and the concept that wealth can be amassed at the expense of others. Probably totally trustworthy within the constraints of his background and beliefs”
I think the answer must be “no”. When anyone has been wealthy for more than a few years they will be spending virtually all their time in the company of other wealthy and privileged people or with those whose role it is to support and serve the wealthy and privileged. This situation becomes so overwhelming a part of their normality that they inevitably lose sight, at a subconscious level at least, of what life is like for the great majority of the electorate. And one’s sense of what is normal inevitably influences one’s decisions and actions.
On the subject of wealth and worth, I’m struck by Richard’s Glossary entry on high net worth Individuals (I’m delighted to learn BTW that they are known as hen-wees!), It’s striking that Banks or those who lead them refer to these especially favoured customers as high net WORTH individuals when in fact their qualification for inclusion in that category is not their worth but their wealth. I’m sure we can all think of wealthy individuals whom nobody would describe as worthy and equally we will know many whose admirable and even noble qualities have not brought them wealth. The fact that bankers apparently don’t know the difference should incline us to seek to reduce the influence that banks and bankers have on the world.
I had real trouble picking an option on this poll. My view is that it’s theoretically possible, but it’s so unlikely that I wanted to just vote “No”. Even good people who are well off often don’t understand how things are for good people who struggle to make ends meet.
The classic example: “Oh, you’re a nurse? That’s amazing, I could never do that job!” but they still have no idea how hard it is for the average nurse to keep a roof over their heads.
I do wonder whether part of the problem is that it often takes time to accumulate wealth, so the people who have it right now are the ones who benefitted from things like free university education or cheaper housing and they end up saying, “if I could, so can you,” whilst forgetting that they had a better starting point.
I think the answer must be “no”. When anyone has been wealthy for more than a few years they will be spending virtually all their time in the company of other wealthy and privileged people or with those whose role it is to support and serve the wealthy and privileged. This situation becomes so overwhelming a part of their normality that they inevitably lose sight, at a subconscious level at least, of what life is like for the great majority of the electorate. And one’s sense of what is normal inevitably influences one’s decisions and actions.
On the subject of wealth and worth, I’m struck by Richard’s Glossary entry on High-Net-Worth Individuals (I’m delighted to learn BTW that they are known as Henwees!), It’s striking that Banks or those who lead them refer to these especially favoured customers as High Net WORTH Individuals when in fact their qualification for inclusion in that category is not their worth but their wealth. I’m sure we can all think of wealthy individuals whom nobody would describe as worthy and equally we will know many whose admirable and even noble qualities have not brought them wealth. The fact that bankers apparently don’t know the difference should incline us to seek to reduce the influence that banks and bankers have on the world.
I think the answer to this question is a qualified yes from me …but probably only if the person was not born wealthy, and knows what it’s like to have to struggle to make ends meet. I mean, this is a ridiculous example, as he has no ambitions or talents in that direction, but would Paul McCartney make a good PM? Probably a lot better than Boris Johnson. Paul earned his wealth by honest means, came from a hardscrabble background, and seems to be an empathetic person. I can’t see Paul making it impossible for refugees to enter the country, can you?
I think it’s not so much wealth as outlook that matters. And while somebody might be sympathetic to a ‘poor’ person, unless they’ve experienced being poor themselves, they are unlikely to have a clue.
I remember reading a profile of a multi billionaire from Minnesota. He was a self made man. He had one son and he said “I’ve given him the best education money can buy and all my love but now he’s on his own. If he falls on his ass, I’m not going to help pick him up, he has to do that himself. He also knows that I’m not going to leave him a single red cent. Now a man like that could well make a good PM.
Because I’ve lived in a few mainland countries I have a perspective of the UK that is impossible for those who have never left the island to have. The UK rich have an arrogance and a very real sense of self entitlement as well as an education that brutalises them at a young age that is not replicated in other European countries. They have never been occupied by a foreign elite so their hubris has never been subjugated. The whole public school system and mindset has no equivalent in Europe. The elite in France know that on the brightest day there is always the shadow of the guillotine, in Germany the revolution that ended WW1 – no such event has happened in the UK. The English Civil War was a fight between the landed gentry and the nobility and we all know how the Levellers and their leaders were treated.
So can any member of the rich elite possibly make a good PM to really put the mass of people first – only an idiot would say yes.
Well, just look at America huh?
My view is that people who are wealthy are wealthy perhaps/often because that has been their goal – a certain narrowmindedness is required.
Being wealthy I suppose does not make you wise or even well informed about life and the lives of others.
And then you have those who have married into wealth or had it passed onto them from capable others (parents etc).
My view (echoing that in another post) is that it is the job description of the prime minister and any minister really that is the problem.
Candidates should be required to understand who they are looking after and why. Knowing the variety of persons whose lives they affect is key really to a good PM and cabinet – indeed a parliament.
At the moment in British politics we have a mono-culture that cares about money – not people.
Even as an atheist I am a big fan of the Jesus of the Gospels.
Matthew 19:20 – 19:22 sums it up for me.
As for Rishi Sunak, I note that his parents were immigrants to the UK but now he makes demons of those so desperate for a life that they risk life to get here. No empathy for suffering there.
🙂