Pritzker Shouldn’t Be Disqualified Because He’s a Billionaire

The problem with billionaires is structural, not individual.

Last week I argued that progressives should seriously consider Pritzker for president. He’s got a great record of accomplishments in Illinois, he’s been defiantly and aggressively anti-Trump. Even just since I wrote the piece he’s announced a statewide LGBT legal hotline and told federal officials that he would hold them legally accountable if they participated in an unconstitutional effort to send federal troops to Chicago. What’s not to like?

Of course, there’s always something not to like; no one’s perfect. In Pritzker’s case, one of the big issues that comes up for progressives is the fact that he is an heir of the Hyatt hotel family. That means that he’s a billionaire.

Progressives (justly!) don’t like billionaires and (rightfully!) think they shouldn’t exist. I don’t think this is a good reason to oppose Pritzker’s candidacy, though.

—

I am not a billionaire, alas, so I need your help to keep running this thing. If you like my writing, consider becoming a paid contributor; it’s $5/month, $50/year. Though if you are a billionaire, you can of course donate more!

—

Billionaires are a structural problem

The problem with billionaires is that they shouldn’t exist. Any individual who has billions of dollars has accrued money out of all proportion to any possible contribution they could be making to society. That kind of wealth accumulation doesn’t happen without massive exploitation of workers and resources. A functional, fair, just society should not allow anyone to gain that kind of wealth or that kind of power. This is a major reason we need confiscatory taxes on high incomes, a wealth tax, stronger union protections, transfer of the means of production to workers, and a whole host of policies which will prevent billionaires from existing.

It's important to note that these are all structural and systemic problems. The issue with billionaires again is that they exist as a class, not that any individual one of them has committed any particular atrocity. In this, it’s similar to the issue with white people. All white people in a white supremacist society like ours have substantial privileges—benefits in the job market, deference from cops, often access to more generational wealth, the chance to see yourself reflected in media, etc. etc.

These benefits exist over to the side of anything you may or may not do as an individual, which is why “not all white people” is an irritating and unhelpful response. But by the same token, “the left shouldn’t vote for white presidents” is I think something most people would agree doesn’t make a ton of sense. More representation of non white people is good, and more non-white presidents would be good, but that doesn’t mean that there’s a moral imperative to bar white people from the presidency.

Pritzker is good on income inequality

Some on the left argue that billionaires aren’t just bad for structural reasons, but are actually actively evil by the fact of being billionaires. Billionaires have to be horrible to people to gain that much money, they argue. Being a billionaire disconnects you from most people’s everyday concerns and means you can’t understand or empathize with their troubles. A good billionaire would give away all their money as quickly as possible and wouldn’t be a billionaire any more.

Pritzker inherited his money; it’s hard to argue he’s evil for being born. Obviously his life experiences are divorced from those of people who have faced financial hardship. On the other hand, he’s spoken more thoughtfully and compassionately on trans issues than virtually any other national politician other than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He’s also translated those stances into legislation which has positively affected the lives of many trans people I know, not least my daughter. That seems more important to me than an abstract argument about what he can or can’t understand as a billionaire.

As far as divesting himself of his fortune: I do admire McKenzie Scott’s philanthropic efforts. But even after years of giving away tons of money, she’s still got some $32 billion, because giving away that much money in a considered way is pretty difficult. And while philanthropy can be admirable, it’s not really a solution to billionaires. Individual decisions and virtue can’t be a solution, because, again, billionaires are a structural problem.

Pritzker is engaged in philanthropy as well. He’s also, though, worked specifically to change tax rates to try to redistribute wealth in Illinois. As governor he backed an effort to change Illinois’ constitution to allow us to move from a flat tax to a graduated income tax. He donated $56.5 million of his own fortune to promote the effort, which was ultimately unsuccessful—thanks in part to massive spending by other wealthy people in the state who wanted to sink it.

Pritzker also has a strong record on unions; his first major legislation when he entered office in 2019 was a minimum wage hike in the state. It’s true on average that rich people tend to oppose redistributive policies. But Pritzker—like FDR before him—has shown himself to be a pretty consistent class traitor in this regard.

FDR was okay

FDR does seem like a relevant parallel here. Like Pritzker, FDR came from a very wealthy family and lived a life of great privilege. He’s also probably the president who worked most effectively to put in place policies to redistribute wealth, weaken the wealthy, and strengthen (or just create) the social safety net.

I don’t think Pritzker is another FDR (which, given FDR’s racial policies, is not entirely a bad thing.) But I do think the left at the time would have been foolish to turn up its nose at FDR because he was wealthy. If a billionaire wants to fight for policies which will take money from billionaires, empower unions, raise the minimum wage, and kneecap fascists, I think progressives should maybe take yes for an answer.

As I’ve said before, I know it’s early in the cycle, and I know there will be a lot of candidates running in 2028. I also know that the fascist attack on our democracy means that the freedom and fairness of elections going forward is going to be in doubt. But while presidential elections aren’t the only thing, they do matter a good deal (as 2024 showed, to our sorrow), and I think it’s imperative to get a candiate who understands we need to fight Trump and pass progressive priorities. Pritzker seems as well positioned as anyone to win and then to do what has to be done if he gets into office. I think the best way to defeat the Newsoms and Rahms and Buttigiegs and assorted other centrists is to coalesce around a Democrat with good policies and good standing early on. So this is me coalescing.