What If the Tea Party Were Black?

[Lord Mhoram]

Ser Scot,

I'm not here to debate FDR's economic policies. I'm merely commenting on the fact that when the business sector of American society has felt threatened by liberal Presidents it has reacted in very similar ways to the phenomenon of spending by corporatists like the Koch brothers against President Obama.

Cail,

Are you questioning the factual veracity of the New Yorker's article in any way? I'm not saying, nor are they, that the Koch brothers are the cause of Obama's falling poll numbers. That' would be ludicrous and unfair. There's no conspiratorial charge involved; it's an assiduously researched piece of investigate journalism into the financial roots of a purportedly grassroots movement. Also how is this a "hit piece"?

[SerScot]

LM,

Don't you see President Obama patterning after FDR?

[wayfriend]

Why can that not be said about Soros? He's been backing leftist causes and websites for years now.

Backing is one thing. Propping up something and hiding behind it is another. The issue I see is one of authenticity; flattening the issue into one solely about money spent hides the distinction.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

I agree Soros is more open about his backing. Does that make his influence over the "progressive" movement any less profound?

[Zarathustra]

... I'm not going to discuss an article with anyone who refuses to read it.

And yet you are. As far as I can tell, you're the only one here who has read it. But you're still talking about it with Cail, SS, and WF. If you don't want to make a case for the article by posting bits you found interesting, or summarizing your own understanding of it, then it's difficult for me to muster up any interest. I tried to read it. And it seemed directionless and boring.

I honestly don't care who is funding the Tea Party. It makes perfect sense for business men to favor a party that is for smaller taxes and smaller government. Of course people are going to seek out parties that represent their self interest. Next you'll be finding something evil in representative democracy.

I honestly don't get the fascination with "proving" that the Tea Party isn't grassroots. Compared to the massive political machines of the two parties in power, the entire make-up of the Fortune 500 could have created a party out of scratch and it would still be more "grass roots" than these two monoliths which control our country.

But I suppose looking for "villians" is easier than a substantive debate on the issues. Class warfare. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Lord Mhoram]

Ser Scot,

I do, yes. (That might make an interesting thread.) I also see clear analogues, as I indicated, between reactions to that Presidency and the current one. I think Mayer's piece is pretty good evidence of this phenomenon.

[Cail]

Are you questioning the factual veracity of the New Yorker's article in any way? I'm not saying, nor are they, that the Koch brothers are the cause of Obama's falling poll numbers. That' would be ludicrous and unfair. There's no conspiratorial charge involved; it's an assiduously researched piece of investigate journalism into the financial roots of a purportedly grassroots movement. Also how is this a "hit piece"?

It's clearly a hit piece designed to prove to the reader that the Tea Party is the puppet of the Koch brothers. It's sensationalized journalism that may be factually correct, but is a hit piece nonetheless.

What's ironic about it is that the NYT's dwindling readership probably already had their minds made up about the legitimacy of the TP. As Z said, it doesn't really matter to anyone other than the TP's detractors, 'cause I guarantee you that most people who call themselves Teabaggers (or whatever they call themselves) haven't got a clue who the Koch brothers are.

The TP is a reaction to the extremist policies of the current administration. Just as Moveon.org and Michael Moore were reactions to Bush's extremist policies.

None of those groups care one whit about the loss of personal liberties that both administrations have championed. When the TP (which, to be fair is primarily tax-based) starts hollering about warrantless searches and wiretaps, then I may pay attention.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

It's clearly a hit piece designed to prove to the reader that the Tea Party is the puppet of the Koch brothers.

You're going to have make your case with more than a rhetorically stronger assertion of what you already said. It's clear from the article that the Koch brothers are riding the wave of newly arising sentiments for their own political and financial benefits.Where do you see in the article the notion that the Tea Party is a "puppet"?

What's ironic about it is that the NYT's dwindling readership probably already had their minds made up about the legitimacy of the TP.

What's even more ironic is that The New Yorker, with a circulation of over one million, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Times. If you're going to make an ad hominem against the source, at least make sure you've got the right one.

As Z said, it doesn't really matter to anyone other than the TP's detractors, 'cause I guarantee you that most people who call themselves Teabaggers (or whatever they call themselves) haven't got a clue who the Koch brothers are.

Isn't that one of the points of the expose, though? That most of the quite earnest Tea Partiers have no more knowledge of the funding of their movement than the rest of mainstream America?

[Cail]

Cail,

It's clearly a hit piece designed to prove to the reader that the Tea Party is the puppet of the Koch brothers.

You're going to have make your case with more than a rhetorically stronger assertion of what you already said. It's clear from the article that the Koch brothers are riding the wave of newly arising sentiments for their own political and financial benefits.Where do you see in the article the notion that the Tea Party is a "puppet"?

That's the thrust of the article.

What's ironic about it is that the NYT's dwindling readership probably already had their minds made up about the legitimacy of the TP.

What's even more ironic is that The New Yorker, with a circulation of over one million, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Times. If you're going to make an ad hominem against the source, at least make sure you've got the right one.

Got me. I was reading Frank Rich's pathetic bandwagon-jumping as I was forming my response.

As Z said, it doesn't really matter to anyone other than the TP's detractors, 'cause I guarantee you that most people who call themselves Teabaggers (or whatever they call themselves) haven't got a clue who the Koch brothers are.

Isn't that one of the points of the expose, though? That most of the quite earnest Tea Partiers have no more knowledge of the funding of their movement than the rest of mainstream America?

It is, and it doesn't really matter.

I'm not really sure what point you're arguing LM, as I'm aware that all political movements (including the TP) have deep pockets behind them. So what?

[Lord Mhoram]

Here are my points in posting that article:

1. It's easy to be aware that big money is behind movements like this one (although again, the Tea Party faithful would have and probably continue to rhetorically deny the influence of corporate interests), but it's equally important to have an explicit awareness of who's doing it and why.
2. Seemingly disinterested think-tank research and policy wonkery (much of which is cited by Tea Partiers in support of their policies) is frequently subject to the ideological whims of their corporate sponsors.
3. This "grassroots" movement is supported, to a significant degree (check the astonishing figures Mayer cites), by self-interested business entities. These great champions of individual liberties are bankrolled by collectivist entities.
4. Without denying the genuinely strong opposition to the White House and many of its policies, much of the organization of that opposition and much of the messaging of opposition ideas come from entities with a vested economic interest in the failure of the Obama Presidency.

One can easily say "So what?" to any of those four. I just think they bear emphasizing.

[Cail]

Here are my points in posting that article:

1. It's easy to be aware that big money is behind movements like this one (although again, the Tea Party faithful would have and probably continue to rhetorically deny the influence of corporate interests), but it's equally important to have an explicit awareness of who's doing it and why.

OK, but the same can be said of Moveon.org.

2. Seemingly disinterested think-tank research and policy wonkery (much of which is cited by Tea Partiers in support of their policies) is frequently subject to the ideological whims of their corporate sponsors.

See Media Matters, MSNBC, Fox News, etc......

3. This "grassroots" movement is supported, to a significant degree (check the astonishing figures Mayer cites), by self-interested business entities. These great champions of individual liberties are bankrolled by collectivist entities.

Like the DNC and their causes are supported by the trial lawyers and the unions, as well as billionaires like Soros.

4. Without denying the genuinely strong opposition to the White House and many of its policies, much of the organization of that opposition and much of the messaging of opposition ideas come from entities with a vested economic interest in the failure of the Obama Presidency.

It's in every working American's interests that the Obama presidency's policies fail.

One can easily say "So what?" to any of those four. I just think they bear emphasizing.

It's a big "so what", because it's not really news (and what's been reported is of questionable motive).

[SerScot]

LM,

To take up Cail's point does Soro's backing make Democratic and left leaning groups any less grassroots? After all are you claiming those activists are all aware of Soros in the backgroud?

Individual motivation for participation in political movements is not directly tied to the manner in which the movement is funded in my opinion.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

OK, but the same can be said of Moveon.org.

Sure.

See Media Matters, MSNBC, Fox News, etc......

I'm not talking about the media or media watchdogs. Media Matters is the only one of these that sort of resembles what I'm talking about -- sources that bill themselves as objective providers or data and policy prescriptions.

Like the DNC and their causes are supported by the trial lawyers and the unions, as well as billionaires like Soros.

Undoubtedly the mainstream left in this country is supported by big money too. But there's an obvious difference. Unions are a good example. The Democratic Party is the part of labor (or it least it was and claims to be). Is the Tea Party the party of prep school graduates, former trust-fund kids, and billionaires? I thought it was about taking our country back from the elites? The billionaires who donate to the Tea Party (I realize I'm speaking about an amorphous entity here) stand to economically gain from the policies they disinterestedly support (e.g., I support Candidate X because they stand for the same abstract ideological principles I do, rather than, I support Candidate X because I'll have more money left over after taxes), whereas billionaires like Soros are donating to candidates who have explicitly pledged to tax them to fund policies aimed at the middle class.

It's in every working American's interests that the Obama presidency's policies fail.

Ha! You say that like it's an inarguable truth.

It's a big "so what", because it's not really news (and what's been reported is of questionable motive).

Oh really? How much about Tea Party funding did you know a month ago? I'm an informed reader of news outlets (if I may say so myself) and I knew a minimal amount. I wager most people before reading that article knew about as much as I did. At the very least it was informative reading.

Ser Scot,

After all are you claiming those activists are all aware of Soros in the backgroud?

George Soros is, by his own efforts, one of the best known benefactors on the planet. Democratic activism does not bill itself as anti-collectivist and anti-elite. Tea Partiers do, when they are the direct beneficiaries of entities that fit that bill who support their policies for their own economic benefit.

[SerScot]

LM,

I don't think they care where the money comes from as long as they have a free hand with the money once it's received. Perhaps that's a flaw.

[Avatar]

Hahaha, I think that's probably true of most organisations.

--A

[SerScot]

When complaining about how people take money from shady or unpleasant groups we need to repeat the mantra, "Money is fungible, money is fungible". It's not where the money comes from that really matter, but what is done with the money after it is received.

[wayfriend]

It's not where the money comes from that really matter, but what is done with the money after it is received.

It's also what they promised to get the money.

[Cail]

David Koch responds to the New Yorker.

David Koch is steaming.

“It's hateful. It's ludicrous. And it's plain wrong.”

The object of his ire is a 9,963 word story in The New Yorker magazine, published last week which accuses David, his brother Charles, and Koch Industries of…well, just about everything: Secretly funding the Tea Party movement, secretly manipulating the Smithsonian, along with, not-so-secretly polluting the planet, stealing oil from Native American land, denying the existence of climate change, and promoting carcinogens—all in the self-interest of making further billions.

Another profile in July, this one in New York Magazine, described Koch as “the Tea Party’s wallet.

The news alert that a businessman with a personal net worth estimated at nearly $18 billion might wield political influence seems to have shocked, shocked, the media. Cue Rachel Maddow, who went on a televised tear, and the rest is Twitter.

Perhaps this wasn’t the Pentagon Papers, but it seemed that there had been an unraveling of sorts—after all, the title of last week’s New Yorker piece was “Covert Operations.”

“If what I and my brother believe in, and advocate for, is secret, it's the worst covert operation in history,” Koch says, in reference to the New Yorker headline, adding that a lengthy letter to the magazine, refuting nearly every allegation in the story is in the works. (Koch industries has already issued a "Response to Recent Media Attacks.")

The origins of “the Billionaire who Secretly Funds the Tea Party” narrative seems to be his connection to Americans For Prosperity, an organization he founded six years ago, whose message is indeed aligned with the Tea Party movement’s message of less taxes and more efficient government. But, he says, no one from the Tea Party movement has ever approached him for money, and when I ask him straight up if he’s funding the Tea Party, all he says is, “Oh, please.”

Yet even the President himself seems to think there are nefarious connections to uncover.

In her New Yorker piece, Jane Mayer cites Obama pointing to Americans for Prosperity as one of those particularly sinister groups with “harmless-sounding names” that may be up to no good. “They don't have to say who, exactly, Americans for Prosperity are,” Obama said at a Democratic fundraiser in Texas last month. “You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation” or “a big oil company,” he said, ignoring that, on the AFP website, staff and principals are named, and that the organization files, as required by law, federal 990 IRS disclosure forms.

A few weeks later, during a conference call with reporters, a senior White House economics advisor mentioned Koch’s company during a discussion of the structure of corporations and tax liabilities. The unveiled reference to a specific company's tax returns—and especially to the tax status of a privately held company—was rather stunning to several on the call.

And to simply characterize Koch as a Democratic detractor, and a Republican right-winger, would be, well, simplistic. While the Kochs have been politically active for more than 30 years, largely funding Republicans, they have never been identified with conservatives on hot-button issues such as gay marriage or abortion. And he and his wife Julia have contributed $74,900 in to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's Democratic campaign for governor, according to Ira Stoll at www.FutureofCapitalism.com. And Politico.com reported that KochPac has contributed $196,000 to Democrats in the 2010 election cycle alone, including $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Center describes Koch Industries as a top polluter. But then its polluters list seems to include almost any company that still manufacturers stuff in the US, including Ford Motor, General Motors, GE, Pfizer, Eastman Kodak, Sony, Honeywell, Berkshire Hathaway, Kimberly Clark, Anheuser Busch, and Goodyear. Furthermore, Koch Industries has supported environmental causes, among other things, donating 682 acres in Oregon to The Nature Conservancy.

But none these accusations—covertly supporting the Tea Party movement, polluting the planet, stealing oil and being a climate change denier—bother him as much as this: It is the suggestion that his position as a member of the National Cancer Advisory Board, an arm of the National Cancer Institute, presents a “conflict of interest” because Koch Industries has lobbied against the classification of formaldehyde as a carcinogen.

It is this accusation which has prompted the normally press-shy Koch to take my call.

For Koch, cancer is personal. He serves on the board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center—he donated more than forty million dollars to the center—and he is, as we’re speaking on the phone, actually at a NCAB meeting in Bethesda, Maryland.

“I can't ignore that allegation, “Koch says. “I've been on this board for six and half years and I've attended about 75 percent of the meetings. The board makes recommendations to the National Cancer Institute regarding gifts and grants to support research endeavors. They aren't responsible for scientific reviews or for providing input on scientific recommendations.” His voice rises. “I have never been in a meeting where the classification of formaldehyde issue has arisen, nor have I tried to influence its evaluation. It's an outrageous accusation.”

I ask Koch about his own prostate cancer, which was discovered too late for a cure, and for which he still undergoes treatment.

“I have been living with this for 20 years after being told I had only a few years to live. It is not pleasant, but I am alive. I am surrounded by love and support, the best wife and partner any man could hope for, and children who delight me every day. I'm a grateful man. The money that I give for cancer research is one of the most important aspects of my life.”

For the record, in addition to the $40 million to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Koch has given $120 million to cancer research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, $35 million to Johns-Hopkins Medical Center, and $30 to the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

He has even urged his three children—David Jr, 12, Mary Julia, 9, and John Mark, 4—watch the Stand Up for Cancer Special on television, in which survivors share their stories.

“You know, once you've stood up to cancer, everything else feels like a pretty easy fight. I am not going to be silenced. I believe in what this country stands for and I'll keep at fighting for what I believe in for as long as I am alive,” he says.

[Cybrweez]

I'm glad a humanitarian like Koch is around to donate millions of dollars for cancer research. I hope the US can produce more billionaires to help humanity in other ways as well.

[wayfriend]

I notice the article doesn't actually dispute anything the New Yorker wrote. It just makes an emotional appeal to change your opinion.