There is something seriously wrong about the way in which America perceives its wealthiest citizens. It's not just that it has become unfashionable to publicly criticize the rich (though it certainly has); the tendency for Americans to grant a free-pass to anybody with a lot of money, for all indiscretions save rape and murder, has led to severe economic hardships for our country's middle and lower classes.

So, what do Americans think about the super-rich? The fact is that, ordinarily, they don't. The popular image of wealth is that of the movie-star or nouveau riche business-men. But, like many popular notions, this image is incorrect – these people are not the truly wealthy. The truly wealthy are defined by three very important criteria: First, they aren't just wealthy now, but they've been wealthy for a very long time. Second, though some might disagree, actors, musicians, and corporate raiders actually work for a living. The super-rich do not – and, in fact, the very thought of earning money through employment disgusts them. Third, they are invisible; with very few exceptions, the wealthiest families in America are people that you've never heard of.

The American attitude towards the very rich could probably best be summed up by the phrase, "Good for them! They earned it!" even though this is not often the case. The most common source of incredible wealth is, by and large, inheritance. While most Americans recognize that capitalism requires what might be described as a "stop at nothing" attitude towards financial acquisition, there is an implicit notion that whomever has managed to capture vast wealth must deserve it somehow, having earned it either through hard work or brilliant strategy. The fact is that the most popular way to get rich in this country is to have wealthy parents. An in depth discussion of whether or not one's parentage is an accurate measure of a person's value is a discussion for another forum; but, on its face, such an idea seems to run counter to the "Good for them," attitude most Americans seem to have towards the wealthy.

This is a case where the perception fails to match reality. It's also a good example of how these mistaken notions can lead to severe consequences for the lower classes. One of the Bush administration's stated goals is to lower taxes, and one of their primary targets on this front was the estate tax. In spite of the fact that we live in a time of rising budget shortfalls, and, in spite of the fact that the estate tax only applies to inheritances of $1 million and higher, there was a great deal of popular support to cut it. Whenever a tax is cut, in order to avoid shortfalls in the budget, either the revenue lost must be recovered from other sources, or spending must be cut as well. In most cases, this means cuts to programs that not only service America's poorest and most defenseless citizens, but also programs that all people benefit from – like road repairs and public libraries.

Yet, in spite of all of this, Americans chose to support cuts in the estate tax. While this was certainly due to some very clever marketing of the cuts on the part of the Bush administration and its supporters, that marketing wouldn't have gotten anywhere if we didn't have some sort of deference to the wealthy. Unfortunately, that deference will likely become the source of our undoing.

For the average American family, the economic situation is becoming more and more precarious. Employment volatility leads to incomes that swing from low to high and back again, as companies lay-off employees who then have to get a job -- any job -- just to stay afloat. This financial instability is a dangerous thing; that much swinging means that it's far more likely that when troubles come, be they health or natural disaster related, the average family will find itself on the low end of the chart, making it less likely for them to recover. A middle class family can easily slip into deep poverty when unemployment and health problems coincide – a situation that is only becoming more likely as business and government collude to undo social safety-nets. Even though many Americans will find themselves barely surviving off of their credit cards in times of trouble, the wealthiest and most successful corporations, in the form of banks, are working with an enthusiastic congress to eliminate bankruptcy protections.

The striking thing about these assaults against the middle-class American family is that they are utterly without mercy – and are almost completely ignored by the very families that they are hurting the most. And that's without our attackers making even a basic effort to conceal themselves. Instead of being outraged at their constant attempts to destroy us, we turn towards popular entertainment to ease our worries.

What's interesting is that there have been a spate of television programs that happily detail the selfishness and heartlessness of the wealthy. From The Simple Life to My Coolest Years, from Growing up Gotti to Born Rich, the American public has had a good, long look at the kind of people God has decided to give money to – and they were amused.

Amused, rather than disgusted. What's wrong with us? Between their advocacy of damaging economic policies and their truly horrifying behavior as documented by reality television, we should be doing everything we can to knock them down a peg. If presented with an opportunity, any red-blooded American patriot should be ready, willing, and able to sock the nearest millionaire in the jaw. They owe us at least that much.

Are we besotted by their wealth? Are we willing to accept that, since we are inferior human beings, the rich should be allowed to do whatever they want with us? Maybe, but there is perhaps one other explanation that, while it isn't very comfortingly, at least leaves us our dignity.

Given that almost all forms of government, by design, have had the primary function of either allowing the wealthy upper-class to remain in their exalted position, or replacing them with a whole new upper-class, the power of the people to defend themselves is incredibly limited. A basic reading of early American history shows that our wealthy, white, slave and land-holding founding fathers fell over themselves in an attempt to preserve their wealth. In fact, they sent thousands of poor working people to their deaths in response to the oppressive tax policies of the British – tax policies that, while they certainly hurt everybody, hurt the rich the most.

Knowing that the poor and unwashed have had practically no say in what happens to them ( with a few brief exceptions), due to the way the system is structured, is it any wonder that we seem have lost the stamina to fight? Or even to get really angry, even though it would be completely justified? This attitude needs to change. The rich haven't the slightest ounce of respect for us or our families. We should, therefore, respond in kind.

One bright spot is the continuing unpopularity of privtized Social Security accounts. These accounts would allow younger workers to risk their futures on the volatile stock market, would cost millions to implement, and would do nothing to ameliorate any possible budget short-fall. Not that these facts have gotten much attention from the media. Yet, in spite of a massive marketing effort by the Bush administration (leading to some rather questionable actions ) people just aren't buying it.

It's not exactly on the same level as the historic struggle against the unfair business practices that lead to the end of child-labor in the United States, but it's a start. Any future attempt to mount a campaign of self-defense on the part of the middle and working classes has to start with the willingness to cry "Bullshit!"

-B. C. Silvia -4/13/05