Michelle Obama's book tour is generating "Beyonce-level sales," the Washington Post reports. Front-row tickets to hear her discuss her upcoming memoir, "Becoming," are going for $3,000, which includes a preshow photo op, a reception with Obama, a signed book and an "exclusive VIP gift item."
No. No. No.
Barack and Michelle Obama were a laudable president and first lady. Professionally, they were highly ethical, while culturally and politically they were exemplary role models. The Obama administration, which for its last six years faced a Republican Congress dedicated above all to Obama's destruction, was among the most scandal-free in U.S. history. There is a reason Republicans spent years reinvestigating previous investigations of the made-for-Fox-News pseudo-event known as Benghazi: The genuine scandal pickings were mighty slim.
Of course, Obama was succeeded in office by Donald Trump, who has already scaled previously unattained heights in presidential corruption, using the Oval Office as a family profit center. Trump has dedicated his presidency to being Obama's opposite, and on morality and ethics he quickly realized his goal.
So why pick on the Obamas for buckraking? The question has been raised before. In 2017, Barack Obama set off alarms with reports that he was shaking the money tree on Wall Street and elsewhere, collecting up to $400,000 per speech.
Matthew Yglesias at Vox criticized the money-grubbing as a boon to right-wing populists eager to portray the Democratic icon as just another rotten insider. Daniel Gross at Slate countered that if the success of liberal politics depends on virtue signaling by former presidents, then money-grubbing is the least of liberalism's problems.
I'm with Yglesias — and not only because right-wing populism is a toxic and mutating force that requires strong remedies.
Countless news articles describe how vast shares of the nation's wealth flow to the very richest, while middle incomes have stagnated or declined in recent decades and the poor remain economically marooned. Meanwhile, corporate boards blithely preside over a system in which the ratio of CEO pay to median-worker pay is 130-to-1, according to Bloomberg data.