Interests

     A number of people who start out on the political Left move Rightward as they advance, economically and socially. Several prominent cases are before us today.

     Psychologist Peter Breggin, among others, has opined about the change in perspectives that comes with success. He attributed it to an improving grasp of the realities of the world: for example, that it takes dedication and persistence – “damned hard work” – to improve one’s lot in a competitive society. As peripheral issues, he cites the increase in religiosity among Americans as we age and prosper. While many believe that phenomenon to be mainly about the recognition of one’s mortality, Dr. Breggin proposes that it can also be a fruit of the search for an explanation for one’s advancement.

     But there’s another component to the thing. He who has attained prosperity and accumulated wealth has more to defend than his younger, less prosperous self. He’s also likely to be reluctant to have to climb that ladder a second time.

     Defensive interests can be decisive in the determination of one’s political posture. Consider the sentiment that animated the American Revolution: a conservative revolt in defense of property rights.

     Now that the Biden regime is history, tales are emerging about the pressure it exerted on the tech barons to comply with its desire to suppress dissenting voices. Probably the most striking is the narrative from Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta / Facebook. While some of that can justly be attributed to simple blame-shifting in the face of the ascending Trump Administration, it’s also a legitimate expression of Zuckerberg’s desire to protect what he had achieved from the grim rapacity of the Bidenites. That regime was notorious for its willingness to use federal power to harass and penalize those it saw as opponents or obstacles.

     During the Biden years, wealthy and well-to-do Americans made considerable changes to their financial positions. Some of them arose from the awareness of inflation, but some were about not wanting to be made a target by the regime. When it’s plain that the regime will brook no opposition, persons without substantial influence over the regime will be moved to hunker down. They shifted their activities away from regime-targeted subjects and their investments away from taxable or regulation-vulnerable sectors.

     The late Thomas Szasz once pithily defined freedom as “what you want for yourself but would deny to others.” It’s a penetrating observation. A dear friend once observed that were he given his druthers, the typical businessman would prefer personal privilege to a general condition of freedom. The laissez-faire posture of makers and traders is largely a recognition that a state of privilege to constrain others for their own benefit is likely to be unattainable, at best impermanent. Freedom is the best available compromise: a state in which one’s competitors are no more privileged than oneself. But of course, when times are bleak for freedom, the dominant impetus will be to scramble for the favor of the regime, or failing that, to avert the regime’s hostility as best one can.

     Things are looking better today, and may God be praised for that. Defensive interests are being deemphasized in favor of a willingness to seek vistas for growth. That’s what a regime favorable to freedom most favors. But among achievers the strongest emphasis will be on their personal interests. Sincere, long-term allegiance to freedom will always be less common than attention on “the bottom line.”