Should one question the intentions of liberal / populist heroes?

[AZ Progressive]

I mean, yes, they may be great radio show / TV talk show hosts, speakers, etc...

But should one really believe that they truly care about the common people, or are really doing it for the money, or that making so much money from doing it does eventually corrupt their intentions?


Consider:


Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have a net worth of $25 million and $20 million, respectively, from essentially becoming liberal heroes and having their own TV show. Ed Shultz's net worth is $11.5 million from targeting working class Democrats (though it's paltry compared to right wing champion Rush Limbaugh's $350 million, it's still 1% level.) You can be a liberal / little guy hero and become rich from doing it, as they have shown.

Jon Stewart, who's made a career based on calling out the Republican party and being a liberal / democratic hero, has a net worth of $80 million. It's not so bad digging through all the shit of the Republican Party when you yourself are making millions doing it. Source: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/richest-comedians/jon-stewart-net-worth/ Also, Stephen Colbert, which made a career out of mocking Republicans, has a net worth of $45 million.

Elizabeth Warren, a progressive hero, has a net worth of between $3.8 million and $10 million, with an average net worth of $8.75 million. She and her husband made almost $1 million a year in 2009 and 2010. She received a $525,000 advance to write "A Fighting Chance", which, according to the article: "chronicles Warren's rise from a struggling childhood to the Senate and her fight for middle class Americans." Source: http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/08/news/economy/elizabeth-warren-wealth/

[elleng]

1. One never knows the 'true' intentions of ANYONE else, so it's silly to ask, imo.

And its ridiculous to conflate net worth with intentions. Too many, imo, appear to assume that wealth MEANS not liberal/progressive, and its foolish; they're successful because many of us agree with their points of view and the commercial marketplace recognizes the value of us 'following' them. Success is GOOD.

[el_bryanto]

2. It depends on where on the economic scale you are

If you are a socialist or believe in a command economy than you can make the case that they are inevitably going to buy into some of the preconceived notions of the ruling class. If you favor capitalism (presumably along the European model with a strong safety net and strong regulation) than people who provide a service that people want are going to be paid for providing that service.

And of course the wealthy have more power than they should in our society; that's part of the problem. So getting some of them on our side is probably necessary.

Bryant

[merrily]

3. Sure, question everything, but the point seems to be that people who make a lot of money

cannot champion populist causes. I don't agree with that.

BTW, I think Stewart is a genius, but very much an establishment Democrat, except when it comes to teachers. (His mom is a teacher.) And, Colbert was similar. And it goes without saying that Maddow is establishment.

[marym625]

4. Yes

But I question people in politics more than the talking heads

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Unlike some, I don't necessarily equate one's wealth with one's intentions. But it is a stark.....

reminder that there's always an incentive and/or ulterior motive in just about everything one does.

[mmonk]

6. And Roosevelt's ghost.

[merrily]

8. RFK's as well.

[mmonk]

11. Yep.

[libdem4life]

9. So is this the secular version of the biblical meme that the rich can't get through the eye of the

needle. Or put differently, if you're any good, you're suspect. Oh My Gawd. Progressives have Money? Who knew.

[djean111]

10. This reminds me of an email I got from an extreme right wing Faux-watching "friend", a

while back. The email listed Warren's worth, and pictured Warren photo-shopped with Indian war paint and feathers.
The gist of the email was how could I trust Warren when she is rich. It was stupid, and what I would expect from a Faux-guzzler.
I deleted the email, and never initiated contact with the acquaintance again.

The email bought into the stupidly simplistic notion that liberals are merely against anyone who has money.

Oh, and the answer is NO, I do not question the intentions of liberal/populist "heroes" (heroes?).
I mean, do I think that what Warren says is not true, just because she has money? That's ridiculous.
That, to me, is a right-wing fantasy. A childishly simplistic way of looking at things.

Also, how a person acquired money is a lot more meaningful than the fact that they have it at all.