RACISM: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

SEXISM: Prejudice or discrimination based on gender.

AGISM: Prejudice or discrimination against a particular age-group and especially the elderly.

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

We’ve heard a lot about the explicit and implicit impacts of racism, sexism and agism during the run-up to the 2020 election.  Of the seven Democrats who have qualified for the December debate, all are white, raising the question whether there is still some intrinsic bias which puts candidates of color at a disadvantage.  Likewise, print and broadcast media are flooded with stories, ironically, about double-standard media coverage of female contenders.  And finally, much has been made of the age of both the incumbent and several Democratic aspirants.

In the currently unobtainable ideal of a post-bias America, we need to remember what comedian David Steinberg tells us about the thin and blured line between stereotypes and inconvenient truths.  Consider the following excerpt from Steinberg’s 1974 routine titled, “Prejudice.”

We have to face up to a few facts.  Some Jews are good with money.  Some blacks have rhythm.  Some orientals all look alike.  And some Puerto Ricans are naturally good with cockroaches.

Which brings me to the latest manifestation of political bias–WEALTHism.  The term does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary or any digital reference.  If it did, I suspect the definition would follow the model established for other preconceptions about population cohorts.  “Wealthism–prejudice or discrimination based on economic well-being, especially those of substantial means.”

I have been thinking about this since November 8, when the Washington Post published an op-ed piece by Jennifer Rubin titled, “Just what we need: Another billionaire Democratic candidate.”  The reference was, of course, to Michael Bloomberg’s pending announcement whether he would enter the 2020 contest for the Democratic nomination.  Rubin gives several reasons why she thinks Bloomberg’s late and media based campaign will fail.  And suggests the former New York mayor would be a welcome foil for other candidates who have been in the race for most of 2019.

Biden and the rest should not feel slighted. I suspect most of them will be happy to jab at another billionaire candidate and tout their own humble beginnings (Scranton! Oklahoma!). They might even seem more appealing by comparison, if only because they are working hard to earn voters’ support.

In a sense, Rubin echoes Steinberg’s 1974 comic routine.  “Some billionaires were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.  Some are narcissistic egomaniacs.  Some think they are masters of the universe.”  But others are not.  For every Donald Trump and Bernie Madoff, there is a Warren Buffett, Ewing Kauffman and Aaron Feuerstein. (If you do not recognize the last two names, that is my point.)

As you are surely aware, Bloomberg has since joined the fray and spent in excess of $32 million on television spots eliciting charges he is trying to “buy” the presidency.  That may be true.  But, one should also ask, “What is he selling?”  To find out, I went to his 2020 website and found the following platform.

• We have an economy that is tilted against most Americans.
• We have a health care system that costs too much and doesn’t cover everyone.
• We have communities ravaged by gun violence.
• We have schools that aren’t preparing our children for success in an increasingly high-tech world.
• We have an immigration system that is cruel and dysfunctional.
• We have a climate crisis that is growing worse by the day.
• We have special interests that corrupt Washington and block progress on all of these issues.

Not much about which a progressive Democrat could argue.  And I cannot help but wonder how Trump and his lemmings could convince voters these are the irrational rants of a socialist.  Bloomberg is anything but. 

Please do not take this post as an endorsement.  There is still a long way to go, and eventually Bloomberg will have to face voters and the media.  At this juncture, I am only suggesting Bloomberg, like any other candidate, deserves a fair hearing.  Do not reject him solely because he is a billionaire. That would make you a “wealthist.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP