You omitted the earlier part of this quote (0:22):
Because… it’s aspirational. I didn’t start with anything. Just penalize everyone that’s done well? We all want to do well. And we should be the party of “doing well”.
We should be a party of business, and leadership. And it is very, very disturbing when I hear a “millionaire” or “billionaire” word.
A large number (vast majority IMO) of immigrants and other poorly-off people in this country can look at somebody like Cloobeck and think “that could be me in 20 years”.
When the Socialists in the Democrat party paint all the wealthy badly, they are attacking their own less-well-off voters in their most vulnerable aspect: their aspirations. Assuming Cloobeck is honest, and I see no reason not to, he wants the party to work for a fair system with open upwards mobility.
Socialists who decry everyone who’s done well as “evil parasites” or “plutocrats” are fundamentally anti-American.
This is not to say there aren’t “plutocrats” (or would be plutocrats), people who have inherited wealth, or acquired it, through corruption and/or manipulation of politics for their benefit.
But successful politics in America should be through distinguishing between the corrupt “plutocrats” and those who have earned their wealth honestly. Not throwing out the baby with the bath water.