Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

[GRG55]

'Tis as it always has been...

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...chamber-g.html

More on AFSCME at this thread:

[tsetsefly]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

ill just copy paste my response to the other thread:

I thought it's well known they are libertarians. And have help fund or start many of of the libertarian organizations out there today. Which aside from what I mentioned already also support legalizing prostitution, gambling and a host of ohter positions the right-wing would throw a hissy fit if they where to pass. As well as organizations that help fight eminent, domain, free speech violations and such. (reason, cato, mercatus etc. are just a few to mention)
But here is an article from antiwar.org which I would not consider a right-wing organization:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...the-kochtopus/

In Defense of the Kochtopus
Suddenly, the “Kochtopus” is in the news – a subject about which I have first hand knowledge. That’s because, for a year and a half or so in the late 1970′s, I was part of it: part of the “family” of organizations funded by Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in America. I wrote about this period at length in my 2000 biography of Murray Rothbard, An Enemy of the State, and thought I would never return to the subject again. Alas, history has caught up with the “Kochtopus,” as we used to call it with some bitterness mixed with affection, and today the Koch empire is the object of the Left’s vexatious attention, with the Kochs billed as “the billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama,” as Jane Mayer put it in a widely-cited piece in the New Yorker magazine.

The Obama network, otherwise known as MSNBC, has regularly railed against the nefarious influence of the Kochian conspirators, with all the subtlety of Pravda denouncing those Trotskyite wreckers and agents of the Mikado who are undermining the Revolution from within. State-controlled National Public Radio has joined the chorus, along with Frank Rich, who, from his perch at the New York Times, hurls invective at these “tycoons,” whose “radical agenda” is being covertly imposed on the country by the “invisible hands” of Big Business, personified by the brothers Koch. Rich cites the work of Kim Phillips-Fein, a assistant professor at New York University Gallatin School, whose book, Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan, seeks to debunk the populist credentials of the American Right by peddling a sophisticated conspiracy theory that posits the “invisible hands” of billionaires as the real force behind the such movements as the Tea Party and its predecessors. Sketching out a skeletal history of this nefarious, progress-resisting billionaires’ cabal, Rich traces their origin back to the American Liberty League, set up by Midwestern businessmen to oppose the New Deal: ...

What Rich, Mayer, and the other chroniclers of the “Invisible Hands” behind the libertarian-conservative movement elide from their pocket history is the one factor that sets the Kochs apart from post-cold war conservatives (and liberals), and that is their untrammeled anti-militarism. The Cato Institute, which was started with Koch money, stood almost alone in Washington against the first Iraq war [.pdf], and staunchly opposed the more recent invasion – just as they oppose Obama’s wars in Afghanistan [.pdf] and beyond. Cato has also stood up for our civil liberties, opposing the PATRIOT Act, and the whole panoply of post-9/11 repressive measures initiated by the Bush administration and expanded by Obama. Right after 9/11, the Koch brothers gave the ACLU $20 million to fight off the Bushies’ assault on the Constitution (George Soros gave half as much).

The Kochs stand at the end of a long albeit virtually unknown tradition. The American Liberty League, which Rich and his ideological allies disdain, was financed by many of the same businessmen who later founded the biggest organized peace movement in our history, the America First Committee. A thoroughgoing anti-interventionism motivated these men, as much as horror at what Roosevelt was doing on the home front. ...

Posing as populists, however fake, Rich and his friends in the administration can’t hope to make any progress with that line, so they came up with this tycoons-against-government narrative, which seeks to create a conspiracy theory in order to explain rising popular opposition to the Obama-ite agenda of Big Government and perpetual war.

It won’t work, because it has nothing to do with the facts. Rich opines that none of Mayer’s blogger critics “found any factual errors in her 10,000 words,” but the piece is riddled with them, not to mention based on a completely false premise, as stated by Rich:

“Her article caused a stir among those in Manhattan’s liberal elite who didn’t know that David Koch, widely celebrated for his cultural philanthropy, is not merely another rich conservative Republican but the founder of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which, as Mayer writes with some understatement, ‘has worked closely with the Tea Party since the movement’s inception.’”

Manhattan’s liberal elites may be content to get their reporting on the inner workings of the conservative-libertarian movement from The New Yorker, perhaps because of the cartoons, but the tea parties were created by another wing of the libertarian movement, and not the Kochtopus, which only later – after the movement took off – decided to go along for the ride. The first tea parties were organized by supporters of Ron Paul, who, on the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, in December 2007, held rallies across the country and held a “money bomb” for Paul’s campaign raising the all-time record for a single day’s political fund-raising. The organizations affiliated with the Kochs have long kept their distance from Rep. Paul: they view him as an unbridled radical, and one who – worse, from their perspective – can’t be controlled or reined in. ...

... What is so dishonest about the Rich-Mayer conspiracy theory, however, is not what they say about the Kochs, but what they leave out. That $20 million contribution to the ACLU, post-9/11, pretty much says it all: these are not reactionary Know-Nothings, or even Republicans of a familiar hue. The fear and hate exuded by the “get the Kochs” crowd is motivated by panic: the fear that the Obama-ites are about to lose their grip on power, and that they’ll lose it in part due to the Achilles heel of this administration: our interventionist foreign policy.

The Kochs, and Cato, have been staunch opponents of the Af-Pak war, as well as the escalation of the war on our civil liberties that George W. Bush started and Obama has continued. The biggest fear of the Obama cultists is that this potent combination – opposition to Big Government and foreign wars – will coalesce in a populist upsurge against Washington. If allowed to take off, such a movement would appeal to the Obama-ite’s base, which, you’ll recall, came together initially due to Obama’s supposed “antiwar” credentials. Now that his administration is handing out trillions to the banksters, the left-wing of the Democratic party is beginning to grumble, and there’s a rebellion brewing in the ranks – which Obama’s wars, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, could ignite into a prairie fire.

In which case, rather than FDR, the model for the Obama presidency may turn out to be Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was harried out of office by antiwar protesters shouting “hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?!”

God knows, I am no fan of the Kochtopus: I’ve often pointed out their shortcomings, from a libertarian perspective, in this space. They betrayed their founding principles time and time again, driving out their former intellectual mentor, Murray Rothbard, when he wouldn’t toe the party line, and refusing to this day to acknowledge him as the true founder and inspirer of the Cato Institute. They then smeared and demonized him, trying to cut off such support as he had. Yet the Rothbardian wing of the movement prospered without Koch money, and eventually gave birth to the Ron Paul campaign: the most successful libertarian effort in our movement’s storied history.


This underscores the paucity and one-dimensionality of the Rich-Mayer conspiracy theory, which posits that everything is about money: yes, money can help create a movement, but it cannot sustain it, or ensure its success. The Ron Paul campaign was pathetically underfunded, in the beginning, until the Ron Paul for President “money bomb” taught the rest of the political world how online fundraising is really done. It’s passion – ideological passion – that energizes political movements: money is an afterthought. The Frank Rich’s of this world think money determines everything: a curiously plutocratic idea for alleged liberals to hold, but there you have it. The truth, however, is that ideas rule the rule, not dollars – and the “Invisible Hands” are not the billionaires, but the ideologues and activist to whom they must inevitably turn.

A response was made by the Koch brothers to a similar hit piece, here is the response (pretty much destroys the article's validity)
http://www.kochind.com/files/Respons...w%20Yorker.pdf

[we_are_toast]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

'Tis as it always has been...

Not at all. This would be equivalent to thinking the economy before FIRE was the same as the economy during FIRE.

Big money in politics has always been a problem, but the Oligarch appointed members of the Supreme court who voted 5 to 4 to let oligarch money be considered free speech, changed the game. People like the Kochs, Texico, Goldman Sachs, and maybe even foreign governments, are now secretly sinking hundreds of millions into buying up politicians so they can deregulate and get their tax breaks. This is the biggest threat to our democracy ever.

The same people who missed the stock bubble and the housing bubble, are now blind to the open bribery now taking place in the back rooms of places like the U.S. chamber of commerce.

[Shakespear]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

Help me out if you can but this From the Kochtopus article above.

along with Frank Rich, who, from his perch at the New York Times, hurls invective at these “tycoons,” whose “radical agenda” is being covertly imposed on the country by the “invisible hands” of Big Business, personified by the brothers Koch.

Is he serious?
New York Times IS part of this "invisible hand" IMHO.

[don]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

What I found noteworthy- not that the rich and powerful exert their influence, that's a given- but how easily the popular uprising is co-opted. A strong sentiment here at the 'Tulip is the electorate can downsize FIRE through their elected officials. Well, not so far....

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

What I found noteworthy- not that the rich and powerful exert their influence, that's a given- but how easily the popular uprising is co-opted. A strong sentiment here at the 'Tulip is the electorate can downsize FIRE through their elected officials. Well, not so far....

The experiences of Russia the last few decades might be relevant in the U.S. Though the Russians might have thought that they succeeded in a populist voter revolt with Yeltsin, the end result presently with Putin and Medvedev doesn't look very populist to me (I'm just guessing on the Russian view here ... don't really know.) Some of the unreliable conspiracy sites I frequent even doubt Yeltsin's true independence from the international oligarchy.

Given how far we are from most observers, even quite energetic and competent ones, understanding what is really going on, I'll be pleasantly surprised (if I live through it) if we genuinely remove the international oligarchy from long standing dominance.

What an aroused electorate can do, and I expect they will do at some point, is to support a culling of the herd of oligarchs. Some of the weaker oligarchs will be thrown to the wolves of popular outrage. Quite possibly however the stronger oligarchs will be fanning the flames of popular outrage behind the scenes, as a way to destroy competition and consume the valuable parts of the carcass. We saw a bit of this with Lehman and Bear Stearns.

[flintlock]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

Not at all. This would be equivalent to thinking the economy before FIRE was the same as the economy during FIRE.

Big money in politics has always been a problem, but the Oligarch appointed members of the Supreme court who voted 5 to 4 to let oligarch money be considered free speech, changed the game. People like the Kochs, Texico, Goldman Sachs, and maybe even foreign governments, are now secretly sinking hundreds of millions into buying up politicians so they can deregulate and get their tax breaks. This is the biggest threat to our democracy ever.

The same people who missed the stock bubble and the housing bubble, are now blind to the open bribery now taking place in the back rooms of places like the U.S. chamber of commerce.

This really is the issue. Not "are Conservatives buying influence?" but rather, "Are oligarchs in general buying influence". But most articles I've read on this subject point to a "Right wing conspiracy" whenever some mogul pays for a political cause, yet they ignore any purchase of influence from the left. They all do it! Thats the system we have now. People need to quit being so gullible.

[jk]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

most revolutions are co-opted at some point. the american revolution of a tom paine was coopted by wealthy planters like washington. the french revolution devoured itself in its zeal, and produced napoleon. the russian revolution went through a [relatively] loose stage before elevating stalin.

i think as long as we're caught up in the old left-right thing, nothing is going to happen.

[tsetsefly]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

Not at all. This would be equivalent to thinking the economy before FIRE was the same as the economy during FIRE.

Big money in politics has always been a problem, but the Oligarch appointed members of the Supreme court who voted 5 to 4 to let oligarch money be considered free speech, changed the game. People like the Kochs, Texico, Goldman Sachs, and maybe even foreign governments, are now secretly sinking hundreds of millions into buying up politicians so they can deregulate and get their tax breaks. This is the biggest threat to our democracy ever.

The same people who missed the stock bubble and the housing bubble, are now blind to the open bribery now taking place in the back rooms of places like the U.S. chamber of commerce.

haha...amazing how people are so gullible.. did you even read what I posted?

First off, if you think the buying of politicians is a recent phenomena youve been living under a rock for years. This has been going out throughout "modern"government history(and before). Virtually every industry from railing, to transportation, to shipping, beer, agriculture etc. has had companies bribe of government usually to get favorable regulation or laws that hurts the competition, and they've been successful most of the time. Go take a look at the corn, sugar and beer industries if you want a nice example of what type of regulations can be bought to favor larger corporations. If you think companies only target republicans, youre even more insane. This is not the biggest threat to democracy ever. The biggest threat to democracy continues being the unstoppable growth and interference of government in our lives. That is what really threatens our "democracy".

As for the Koch's, they have been doing nothing secretely, lol. For years they have given to libertarian organizations and help fund certain candidates or certain issues (like giving the ACLU 20 million, or fighting the patriot act and iraq war). The fact that so little facts can be used to rile up democrats (or republicans) serves as a great indictment on public education err indoctrination...

FInally, most big companies, hate competition and the free market, that is why they gladly help set up regulations that will affect smaller competitors more. Big Business does NOT like the free market (for the most part). And anyone who believe that tax breaks is the only way companies can benefit is being very very naive. Just like anyone who believes a company that wants lower taxes is fighting for free markets (on one small front they very well might be, but they work they do behind the scenes is what really matters). I would really like a good argument for how goldman sachs is for free markets when for years they've used government power to directly benefit their business. Doesn't seem like its very free-market of them.

[flintlock]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

Agree completely .

[oddlots]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

I agree with all of the above fly, but please answer me this: when the banks were on the cusp of failing in 2009 and the crucial decision to either force them into receivership (aka seize assets, fire management, wipe out the equity holders and give bond holders a haircut) why did I get a distinct feeling that the cries of "Socialism" that forestalled this natural process were coming from the right? Or from the Tea Party no less.

[Shakespear]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

It is a war of WORDS.

"partisan" = "freedom fighter" = "terrorist"
"the rich" = "family fortunes" = "oligarchs"

Pick the place, time, NEED and side you are on, then chose the appropriate word. Emotions and imagery generated by it in the "receiver" of the message will accordingly be different. It depends on the "senders" need.

tsetsefly is correct above IMHO. Problem is that the majority does not read much "deep" history and is of the opinion that living NOW is somehow unique. All that happened in the past was done by dummies and in no way could happen in the "smarter times" NOW. "We" would never allow it to happen again. :-)

[BK]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

Shakespear - great post. We Modern humans think we are deeper thinkers than our forefathers because we have computers and the internet. The have been some incredibly sharp people through out human history and some of the brightest had the mis-fortune of being born prior to the invention of electricity - just bum luck.

The schools systems of today like to reinforce that your need to have technology and fancy buildings to get a good education. If people believe other wise there would be massive ritots because of the over spending that occurs in every school district in America.

[cjppjc]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

Shakespear - great post. We Modern humans think we are deeper thinkers than our forefathers .

Yes sir.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Is There Really Any Difference Between Coke and Koch?

Shakespear - great post. We Modern humans think we are deeper thinkers than our forefathers because we have computers and the internet.

Computers and the Internet are having a profound affect, but as you note, it is not to enable us to think more deeply about the things humans have long thought of.

Rather they help form the fabric of another layer of human activity, a dynamic, living global awareness and interaction in great detail and variety, of immense capacity, ceaseless change and rapid interaction and evolution.

Like all layers of life and human civilization, this layer is a mixed blessing.