Did That Billionaire's 'Nazi' Rant Begin With a Dispute ...Over Landscaping?� |� Richard (RJ) Eskow

By now millions of people have heard that Silicon Valley billionaire Tom Perkins comparedprogressive political speech to Kristallnacht, the night of religious violence that led to the death of91 Jews and paved the way politically for the Nazi Reich and the Holocaust. Here's what youprobably don't know: Perkins' rage appears to have been fueled, at least in part, by a dispute overgardening.

That's right: Gardening.

Perkins' now-infamous screed for The Wall Street Journal is filled with bilious commentary about"the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to theprogressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich.'" Bad as it is, Perkins is not the firstbillionaire to do that kind of thing. Hedge funder Stephen Schwarzman notoriously compared to atax increase for people like him to Hitler's invasion of Poland.

Perkins continues to double down on his offensive comments. That proves that he is serious aboutthese ugly opinions, and will lead many people to conclude that he is an unredeemable jerk. (Seeupdate below.) Kleiner Perkins, the investment firm Perkins help create, has already distanced itselffrom Perkins with an outraged tweet pointing out that he has long since left the organization.(The tweet might be interpreted thusly: Shut up, Tom.)

It's important to understand, or at least attempt to understand, the mental state that produces suchplutocratic rage. After all, our political and economic system gives billionaires an extraordinaryinfluence over the lives of every individual in the country. It pays to investigate their emotionalmakeup, if only for our societal well-being.

Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times provided context to what he rightly described as Perkins'"ghastly outburst," pointing to his past offenses (which include writing a vanity romance-novelproject called "Sex and the Single Zillionaire"). Paul Krugman responded to the Perkins controversyby pointing to the "paranoia of the plutocrats," and that's undoubtedly a large part of the problem.But that still leaves an unanswered question: Paranoia about what, exactly?

There were several curious things about the Perkins editorial (besides, that is, the delusionalcomparison of political speech with the mass murder of innocent people solely on the basis ofreligion). The first was the special effort Perkins took to attack the San Francisco Chronicle, which,while a fine newspaper, is hardly the People's World. The second was the mention of romance authorDanielle Steel, who Perkins describes as "our number-one celebrity." Perkins says that Steel wassubject to "libelous and cruel attacks" in the Chronicle -- presumably on orders received from theOccupy movement's high command.

It doesn't take a lot of research to discover the Danielle Steel is Tom Perkins' ex-wife, or that thecouple has maintained a close and friendly relationship after their divorce. Good for them -- and wemean that. I suppose it's gallant of Perkins, at least in some way, to rush to his ex-wife's defense.

But over what? What sort of "leftist" attacks were made on the romance author in the pages of the

San Francisco Chronicle? Here's what we discovered: It criticized a hedge. Specifically, it criticizedthis hedge, in an entirely nonpolitical one-paragraph item in the paper's "Cityscape" feature. Thatpiece describes Steel's landscaping flourish as "comically off-putting" and bemoans its harmful effecton the ideal of "friendly streets."

Not only is the item entirely nonpolitical, but "Cityscape" writer John King doesn't seem entirelycertain that Steel is the present owner. He opts instead for the vaguer language that the mansionwas "later inhabited by best-selling novelist Danielle Steel." King's point seems clear, and anythingbut personal: Houses and their gardens shouldn't intrude on public sidewalks, and this one does.

Afterwards a Chronicle reporter asked Steel about the controversy. Steel said that her "securitypeople" had recommended the hedge for privacy, then added: "Sometimes, I think San Franciscohates successful people. No matter what I do, people say nasty stuff. I mean the world is fallingapart and people complain about my hedge. It's a mystery."

Steel went on to complain about city residents' sense of style, saying "There's no style, nobodydresses up -- you can't be chic there. It's all shorts and hiking boots and Tevas -- it's as if everyone isdressed to go on a camping trip."

That drew a pithy response from Chronicle blogger C.W. Nevius, who called her a "snob" andargued that she shouldn't live in a conspicuously public home if she wants privacy. Steel wrote aletter objecting to that characterization and pointing to her own charitable work as proof of her goodcharacter.

Let's be clear on one point: We take her at her word on that. There's no need to tear down Steel'scharacter. (It should also be noted that Steel never frames this as an issue of the "left," but ratheraddresses matters of tone.) Nor do we have any desire to be drawn into the hedge controversy. Wecover the worlds of politics, economics, and big business -- scant preparation for the reallycontentious fields of gardening and home improvement. We will make only this simple observation:Nobody in the Chronicle criticized Steel's wealth. There is nothing even vaguely leftist aboutdisliking someone's landscaping, or even in calling them a "snob."

So why does Perkins target the left? He should be going after the Better Homes and Gardens crowdinstead.

Oddly, Perkins also says that his screed was written in response to a Wall Street Journal editorialabout "censors on campus." That editorial argued that schools who suppressed bigoted speech wereviolating basic constitutional rights. But Perkins isn't agreeing with them. He's creating his own listof censored speech, with criticism of his own crowd at the top of the list.

What's ironic about that is that the apparently unpleasant Perkins (he boasts about his egofrequently) has been the subject of almost relentlessly flattering press attention. That includes a puffpiece about his yachting adventures from 60 Minutes, a news organization that has long sincetransformed itself from a hard-hitting journalistic operation to a puff-piece factory for the billionaireset.

There's a pattern here. Billionaires like Tom Perkins are accustomed to being flattered, no matterhow silly or nasty they sound. They view every form of criticism of the social peers -- even ofgardening choices -- as a vicious personal attack, no matter how mildly it's framed. They appear tohave lost all real empathy for people who must live with the consequences of their actions, whetherit's an unsightly and intrusive hedge (make up your own joke about "hedge funders"; we're tired) or

the tax breaks and other favorable policies they promote for themselves with their wealth andinfluence.

Perkins does allude to at least one serious matter: the recent outbreaks of violence against Googleemployees in San Francisco. But it's possible to both reject that violence and understand the socialforces which give rise to it.

Perkins either mischaracterizes or fails to understand the outrage at play there: People don't objectto Google's buses, which it uses to transport its employees between San Francisco and its Peninsulaheadquarters. They object to those buses' illegal use of taxpayer-funded bus stops, which is symbolicof the way noblesse oblige further discomfits a dying middle class. And the "rising real-estate priceswhich ... 'techno geeks' can pay" are ruining lives, while robbing a city of diversity, livability, andcharacter.

Even as global financial leaders fret over inequality at Davos, Tom Perkins is using extremistrhetoric to shut down such talk among his social inferiors. After an ugly screed, inspired in part bya gardening dispute, one hesitates to imagine what Perkins has in mind for more progressive-mindedone-percenters like those at Davos and Kleiner Perkins -- a Night of the Long Pruning Shears,perhaps?

Perkins may not like to hear it, but rising wealth inequality is shattering our society, as SanFrancisco's plight so amply demonstrates. There is no room left for middle-class life in a societydominated by excessive wealth. Perkins may choose to become outraged over trivial as well asserious offenses, but he's in the process of losing the one treasure which money can'tguarantee yet: the respect of others.

(UPDATE: After defending his comments, as of this writing Perkins is speaking on Bloomberg TV. Heis expressing "regret" only for the use of the word Kristallnacht, and is continuing to adamantlydefend his premise. He is describing a world in which the "creative one percent" is beingpersecuted. His solution? "Let the rich do what the rich do." In other words, he remains steadfast inhis hatred of progressives and his belief in the "job creator" myth. Perkins also confirmed that thehedge incident was the original inspiration for his commentary.)