The wealthy and powerful must be taught from their earliest education that they have a moral responsiblity that comes along with their wealth and power (I'm talking about a culturally and socially encouraged responsibility...not the phoney "responsbility" of socialism/redistribution....I'm talking about "nobility" in the best, old sense of the term).
Since the obvious impulse of the rich and powerful is to use their wealth and power to continue to accumulate more...this "noblesse oblige" is not something that is intuitive...but is rather something that must be taught by the person's parents, church, educators, etc. The case for this sort of thing is much easier to make when the downtrodden in a given society are of the same tribal unit as the powerful.
In a fragmented, multicultural society such as ours, there is neither the educational/cultural coherence to encourage such behavior...nor is there the argument from "tribal/extended family responsibility".
The result is uncultured, arrogant monsters like the above Ms. Grubman.
You folks are onto something here. It would seem as if, in the wealthy liberal mind, the concept of noblesse oblige toward one's own social inferiors (but racial equals) has somehow mutated into:
a. An overpowering sense of guilt toward so-called minorities.
b. An overweening sense of superiority toward supposed "social inferiors".
Somehow, I don't believe John D. would approve...