Why is a financial autocrat any better than a political one?

George Soros—according to his own website, “a prominent international supporter of democratic ideals and causes,” but according the memory of the majority of people of my generation and above, the man who made one billion pounds from the UK’s exit from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism—has called Donald Trump a “would-be dictator.”

If power must be wielded, then I suppose I would prefer it to be through the dollar than the gun; however the implied criticism (one presumes a “supporter of democratic ideals” opposes dictatorship) rankles bitterly coming from him. Whether it be that of a sociopathic Putin wannabe, or that a malevolent monetarist who will bankrupt a country and put countless millions of people through stress and misery in order to multiply his already unspendably inordinate wealth, excessive and arbitrary individual power is to be resisted and condemned.

The gall of this man calling himself a democrat—when his whole life has been committed to destroying the agency of others—and power-shaming another tycoon—who, however fairly or unfairly, has won a democratic election, something Soros has never even attempted to do—highlights the absurd state of our twenty-first century Mammon-worship, where a small cadre of the “super-rich,” individuals possessing enough personal wealth to bankrupt whole countries, evade the contempt, protest, and opposition we load upon our political demagogues. However philanthropically he spends his ill-gotten gains, George Soros is as much an enemy of freedom, democracy, and open society as his fellow sociopath about to be sworn into the White House.