Tom Perkins Is Willing to Say What the Rest of the Ultrarich Are Secretly Thinking

He is also bad at math.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Lucia Graves
Feb. 14, 2014, 9:03 a.m.

Tom Per­kins in­censed the In­ter­net (again), when he sug­ges­ted Thursday that only tax­pay­ers should get the right to vote and that the wealth­i­est Amer­ic­ans who pay the most in taxes should get more votes. Yep, you read that right.

The sen­ti­ment is es­pe­cially of­fens­ive when you con­sider the demo­graph­ics as­so­ci­ated with the state­ment (read: white and male), but it isn’t the most ab­surd thing he’s said. That would be a let­ter Per­kins wrote to The Wall Street Journ­al on Jan. 24, in which he com­pared “the pro­gress­ive war on the Amer­ic­an 1 per­cent, namely the ‘rich’ “Š” to the per­se­cu­tion of Jews in Nazi Ger­many, par­tic­u­larly that the 1 per­cent face a “rising tide of hatred” akin to Kristallnacht, a series of co­ordin­ated at­tacks against Jews in 1938.

The strangest thing about the let­ter isn’t that he thought that or even ad­mit­ted it in a pa­per of re­cord. What boggles the mind is the out­pour­ing of sup­port he re­ceived from like-minded ul­trarich Amer­ic­ans and con­ser­vat­ives.

Bil­lion­aire in­vestor Sam Zell, ap­pear­ing on Bloomberg TV re­cently, de­nounced what he termed “the polit­ics of envy,” ar­guing the 1 per­cent have earned their po­s­i­tion in so­ci­ety. “I guess my feel­ing is that [Per­kins] is right: The 1 per­cent are be­ing pummeled be­cause it’s polit­ic­ally con­veni­ent to do so,” he said in an ex­change with an­chor Betty Liu. “The prob­lem is that the world and this coun­try should not talk about envy of the 1 per­cent. It should talk about emu­lat­ing the 1 per­cent. The 1 per­cent work harder. The 1 per­cent are much big­ger factors in all forms of our so­ci­ety.”

And The Wall Street Journ­al, a pub­lic­a­tion most be­loved by the rich, sim­il­arly came to his de­fense. Any­one won­der­ing wheth­er the pa­per’s ed­it­ors had prin­ted Per­kins’s let­ter to em­bar­rass or ex­pose him had their an­swer: They pub­lished it be­cause they were sym­path­et­ic to the ar­gu­ment. Un­der the curi­ous head­line “Per­kin­snacht,” the ed­it­or­i­al board pub­lished an in­dict­ment of “lib­er­als in power,” wax­ing dra­mat­ic about how “lib­er­al vi­tu­per­a­tion makes our let­ter writer’s point.” The ed­it­ors con­cluded: “The lib­er­als aren’t en­cour­aging vi­ol­ence, but they are pro­mot­ing per­son­al vili­fic­a­tion and the ab­use of gov­ern­ment power to pun­ish polit­ic­al op­pon­ents.”

Sup­port for Per­kins’s ar­gu­ment was so wide­spread that The Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Eu­gene Robin­son wrote a piece ques­tion­ing what ex­actly was mak­ing “some con­ser­vat­ives take a leave of their senses” in com­ing to Per­kins’s de­fense. The best re­sponse to that ques­tion came (as usu­al) from New York Magazine‘s Jonath­an Chait. “Per­kins’s let­ter provided a peek in­to the fantasy world of the right-wing one per­cent, in which fantas­ies of an in­cip­i­ent Hitler-esque ter­ror are just slightly bey­ond the norm.”

It wasn’t just the wealthy who came to Per­kins’s side. One of the most co­gent con­ser­vat­ive ar­gu­ments I read came from Michelle Malkin, who ar­gued that it’s dan­ger­ous to mar­gin­al­ize a group, any group, even mil­lion­aires and bil­lion­aires. It was a good point, but it was something else in her piece that caught my at­ten­tion. She called Per­kins a “truth-tell­er” whose “mes­sage in de­fense of our na­tion’s achiev­ers will tran­scend, in­spire, em­bolden and pre­vail.” No mat­ter, she lamen­ted, “the mob is shoot­ing the mes­sen­ger any­way.”

That’s just it: Per­kins isn’t an ab­er­ra­tion, and his mes­sage is of­fens­ive pre­cisely be­cause it speaks to something a lot of rich people and con­ser­vat­ives ac­tu­ally be­lieve. Per­kins hadn’t gaffed. He hadn’t mis­s­poken. Al­though he would later qual­i­fy his re­marks, he was mak­ing a point that many of the uber-rich be­lieve in­stinct­ively. They’re just too prudent to say so.

Per­kins’s most re­cent state­ment — that people who pay more in taxes should get more votes — hasn’t had time to at­tract the kind of sup­port his first one garnered, but it has par­al­lels in Er­ick Er­ick­son’s 53 per­cent move­ment. The Red­State.org founder’s coun­ter­punch to Oc­cupy Wall Street’s “We are the 99 per­cent” slo­gan was meant to rep­res­ent the 53 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans who pay fed­er­al in­come taxes. The as­sump­tion is that Oc­cupy pro­test­ers are among the now fam­ous (thanks, Mitt Rom­ney!) 47 per­cent of the coun­try who don’t.

The sen­ti­ment would re­sur­face again on the pres­id­en­tial cam­paign trail when Rom­ney said the thing that doomed his can­dic­acy. A re­fresh­er: “There are 47 per­cent of the people who will vote for the pres­id­ent no mat­ter what. All right, there are 47 per­cent who are with him, who are de­pend­ent upon gov­ern­ment, who be­lieve they are vic­tims, who be­lieve the gov­ern­ment has a re­spons­ib­il­ity to take care for them, who be­lieve that they are en­titled to health care, to food, to hous­ing, to you-name-it.” 

An­oth­er thing Rom­ney left off but might as well have said? Those who be­lieve they are en­titled to vote. Rom­ney and Per­kins have good reas­on to want to keep the 47 per­cent from vot­ing. Namely, the 47 per­cent won’t make it a pri­or­ity to pro­tect the in­terests of the long-suf­fer­ing 1 per­cent. They have more press­ing con­cerns, like, say, gro­cer­ies.

And that gets to an­oth­er of Per­kins’s fears: that the 1 per­cent is some­how en­dangered and at risk of “eco­nom­ic ex­tinc­tion.” To wit: “The fear is wealth tax, high­er taxes, high­er death taxes — just more taxes un­til there is no more 1 per­cent. And that will creep down to the 5 per­cent and then the 10 per­cent,” he said. It’s the ir­ra­tion­al­ity of this fear that has garnered the bulk of me­dia at­ten­tion. But it’s also worth re­flect­ing for a mo­ment on just how poor Per­kins’s con­cep­tion of per­cent­ages is. (Pauses for dra­mat­ic ef­fect. Moves on.)

There are a few oth­er stat­ist­ics Rom­ney didn’t men­tion, such as that two-thirds of house­holds that don’t pay fed­er­al in­come tax do pay payroll taxes. Or that 18 per­cent of all tax filers paid neither payroll nor in­come taxes. Of those who paid neither, nearly all of them were eld­erly or had in­comes un­der $20,000.

Rom­ney thought he was speak­ing in con­fid­ence, but Per­kins isn’t wor­ried about that. Per­kins, as Malkin so deftly ob­served, is a truth-tell­er. He’s say­ing what the right-wing 1 per­cent truly be­lieve but are too scared to ad­mit pub­licly.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.