Will a society of millionaires push for better economic policies?

Scott Sumner thinks so:

So if Singapore ends up with a steady state of 25% to 30% millionaires, that steady state will imply that roughly half of all Singaporeans will be millionaires at some time during their lives.

This will make the Singaporean electorate much more “conservative” i.e. anxious to have government policies that preserve wealth.  It will also allow Singapore to get away with a smaller set of social welfare programs, and lower tax rates.  A virtuous circle of growth creating good economic policies, which will create even more growth.

I'm not so sure.  I normally wouldn't question Scott's economic expertise, but this statement seems to fly in the face of most of what I know about public choice economics and creative destruction.  It seems to me that a society of millionaires would push for policies that enshrine the economic status quo.  It is in the economic interest of these millionaires to restrict creative destruction and the resulting economic mobility.  Rather than "a virtuous cycle of growth creating good economic policies, which will create even more growth," I foresee growth eventually creating economic stagnation.  The entrepreneurial may then emigrate to other countries with more dynamic economics, creating a sort of leveling effect.