Do Wealth and Power Corrupt Everyone?

According to my dad, there's no such thing as a good rich person.  Now, I understand that was probably a hyperbole.  However, there might be a certain amount of truth in that statement but I also contend that people in the upper echelons of the socio-economic hierarchy are not inherently more evil than others.  Rather, it is more likely that wealth and power corrupt whoever possesses them.

This came to my attention even more lucidly while reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.  The first chapter begins with Columbus' arrival to the West Indies and his successful genocide of ALL the Arawak natives on the island.  This chapter is followed by the horrible conditions that African slaves had to endure as well as those of the white indentured servants.

Were the Spanish, the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, and the English worse people than those from other countries?  I doubt it.  A much more plausible explanation is that they encountered civilizations that had many desirable resources and the former had the ability to take what they wanted by will.  (If you're interested in the exact details of how and why the Europeans dominated the globe, read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.)  If the Chinese were the first ones to actively explore the New World, then perhaps they would be the ones who would have conquered the Americas and wiped out virtually all of the Native Americans off the two continents.

One of the more interesting ideas from the book had to do with class struggle during America's colonial period under the British.  The basic idea is that well-educated middle and upper-middle class Americans like Sam Adams, James Otis, Jr. (the man who famously coined the phrase "Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny"), and many other famous Bostonians (credited for planting the seeds of the American Revolution) would rally support against the powerful British and Tories in Boston by summoning the American lower class, riding on their angst, grievances, and frustrations caused by the unfair taxes and laws imposed by the British Parliament.  Of course, the leaders of the American Revolution succeeded but the poor remained poor, the slaves remained enslaved, and the oppressed remain oppressed.  Note that the American government continued its territorial expansion by killing off more Indians and witheld women's suffrage, just as the Europeans did.

This social phenomenon of the bourgeoisie using the proletariat by promising the latter a better life under new social rule (followed by the former never following through on their promises after they acquire their power) is usually mentioned in world history classes when discussing the French, Bolshevik, and Cultural Revolutions.  But one should not underestimate the ubiquity of this important pattern for America is not immune.

How might this be relevant to you?  If you're one of my friends reading this, you're probably a Democrat and will vote for Obama this coming election.  You're well-educated and you think that big businesses are the bane of our society and their CEO's are nothing but greedy fat-cats who don't care about Americans.

BUT, would you still be voting for Obama if you were among the super-wealthy in America?  Probably (and statistically), you wouldn't.  It's more likely that you'd vote for Romney who promises not to increase your income tax.  If that's the case, then who are you to morally condemn the millionnaires and billionaires who are simply voting in their interests?  After all, that's what you'd do.

By the way, I am NOT saying that any of the atrocities committed by the rich and powerful are justified.  Wrong is wrong.  Rather, this is merely a reflection on human nature and that maybe we should think twelve times before we judge those who abuse their social advantages.  In a way, they're victims too.