You'll pardon me for having some confusion over the current state of Democratic thinking regarding multiple home ownership. In 2004, the Democratic standard bearer owned multiple houses, and yet the party figured his wartime valor trumped that purported stain. Present-day secular saint Al Gore has parlayed his lucrative carbon offset racket into a lifestyle worthy of a 21st century Sun King. The left doesn't seem to mind. And yet John McCain's wealth is somehow a scandal?
I must question how genuinely scandalized the Democrats are by McCain's wealth. Tonight, the Democrats will be honoring Ted Kennedy. Like McCain, Kennedy enjoys tremendous wealth. Also like McCain, the wealth that Kennedy enjoys has nothing to do with any personal industry he has shown. Of course, Kennedy' wealth should in no way disqualify him from the honors he'll receive tonight.
The Kennedy family actually pioneered a devastating response to the charge that their wealth made them somehow unfit to serve the common man. "It's not where you come from," they would say, "but where you stand." Because the Kennedys never stood with the "let them eat cake" school of the super-rich, their riches weren't a problem. While Ted Kennedy never personally experienced the thrill of having a mortgage payment that he couldn't afford to pay, that lack of life experience didn't disqualify him from serving such people. It was obvious that he sympathized with them and would do everything he could to help them.
The fact is, most Americans don't resent the wealth of others. Indeed, in spite of the persistent attempt of American liberals to stigmatize wealth, most Americans have decided to ignore the protests of their intellectual betters. Ordinary people try to accumulate as much wealth as possible. When the typical American hears about someone owning seven homes, most think, "I wish I did, too." The rest think, "I wish owned eight." Even saintly figures such as Barack Obama endeavor to make a lot of money and enjoy the material benefits that their financial successes allow.
There are several problems with the attack on McCain's seven houses. And when I say "problems," I don't mean just logical problems but also political problems. In order to make a class resentment case against a wealthy politician, you have to make two points: First, you have to establish the candidate's great wealth. Next, and this is the critical step, you have to show that the candidate's wealth has separated him from the common man.
This is a tough case to make against McCain because of his life story. While it makes lefty heads pop off every time McCain loyalists point to his military service, McCain shared in the greatest challenges that his generation faced. As the left has often pointed out with evident glee, this was not the case with many wealthy Republican office-seekers who came of age in the Vietnam era.
And then there are the optics of John McCain himself. If McCain spends a lot of money on his wardrobe, it doesn't show. He may wear $550 loafers, but (and I say this respectfully), he still manages to look extremely frumpy. He doesn't wind-surf or snow-board. Having been laid as low in his life as he was in Vietnam, McCain just doesn't come across as the kind of rich guy who floats above the concerns of the ordinary citizen.
So what are the Democrats left with? They're left complaining that McCain has too much wealth. And they're left with a guy who made $4 million last year to push that case. Honestly, if they were really intent on pursuing the class warfare angle, surely they could have come up with a cleaner narrative.
Then there's the additional problem that this will strike most Americans as a petty and irrelevant attack. Over the past 70 years, America has had a lot of rich presidents. FDR, JFK, LBJ, Reagan and both Bushes were all men of means. In each race, their opponents tried to use their wealth as a cudgel to bludgeon them with. And it never worked.
