4 ms·

The book Dark Money by Jane Mayer tells much of the backstory of how many of these think tanks got started. Most of them were funded by rich folks, mostly far

The book Dark Money by Jane Mayer tells much of the backstory of how many of these think tanks got started. Most of them were funded by rich folks, mostly far right or libertarian (e.g. Kochs brothers), for one reason: to make the rich folks' far right, libertarian views seem moderate and mainstream. The idea was to sponsor a think tank that looked moderate and unbiased, but then to fill it up handpicked people who were basically paid to try to "prove" that the Koch brothers ideas are good. Of course both sides do this now, but the libertarian and far right folks have done it the best.

briandear 9y ago
And Soros funded groups are different? Come on now. There are plenty of think tanks that are supported by anti-capitalist interests as well. It feels to me like “Koch Brothers” is some kind of socialist dog whistle to rile people up. It’s like mentioning Rush Limbaugh: people get riled up over just the name, but it’s highly likely most people have never heard his show — just cherry picked, out of context quotes that are like red-meat to the starving tigers of left wing interest groups. To be fair, the right has their dog whistles too. Mention Nancy Pelosi or George Soros and the right loses their mind as well. Acting like think tanks are some sort of capitalist conspiracy is just ridiculous.
- tptacek 9y ago
  The comment you replied to wasn't great, but you took what was worst about it and dialed it up to 11.
  - norikki 9y ago
    I agree. Soros and the Koch bros are two sides of the same coin. They both advocate pro-globalization policies, Soros the social aspects, and Koch the economic aspects. It's clear that globalism has massively benefitted the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the lower and middle class, and one way they justify the madness is by funding these propaganda organizations. What bugs me is how often reports from "Think Tanks" and NGOs are uncritically reported as news by the media without disclosing their donors.
  - spikels 9y ago
    But given your politics you would say that. Right? It would be really nice to see people criticizing their own side when they are out of line. But these days loyalty to ones tribe seems much much more important than being objective. Not a good development IMHO.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- jacobolus 9y ago
  Nancy Pelosi is a mainstream center-left Democrat who just happens to be a woman (!) from San Francisco (!) in a position of power, which gets some people in a tizzy. Most of the outrage about whatever it is she’s saying or doing this week is manufactured by a propaganda machine. The Koch Brothers, by contrast, have a self-serving radical fringe ideology and no public accountability whatsoever, but because they are billionaires who have organized with other billionaires, can spend huge amounts of money in a subversive campaign to make their fringe ideas seem respectable. Have you ever heard Limbaugh’s show? My grandfather once was a reasonable, competent, practical mainstream Republican (worked in the White House during the Nixon and Ford administrations), but 20 years of listening to Limbaugh and later Fox News turned him into a ranting conspiracy theorist.
gbacon 9y ago
Left and right are flavors of authoritarianism. Far right and libertarian are not synonymous.
- alphapapa 9y ago
  Left and right are degrees of authoritarianism, e.g. libertarian is far right, and nazism and communism are far left. Nazism and communism would be flavors of authoritarianism.
- coliveira 9y ago
  And this itself is a piece of propaganda spread by libertarian think tanks.
- kiliantics 9y ago
  You have no idea what you're talking about, nor do the people that responded to you it seems. Authoritarianism is completely orthogonal to the "left-right" axis of political philosophy. There is a libertarian left (anarchism) and libertarian right (Ayn Rand style American libertarianism), as well as authoritarian left (marxist-leninist style socialism) and authoritarian right (fascism). politicalcompass.org
  - gbacon 9y ago
    I am just a random know-nothing Internet guy. Leonard E. Read, who started the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), has better credentials. “Left” and “right” are each descriptive of authoritarian positions. Liberty has no horizontal relationship to authoritarianism. Libertarianism’s relationship to authoritarianism is vertical; it is up from the muck of men enslaving man. But, let’s begin at the beginning … Source: “Neither Left Nor Right,” https://fee.org/articles/neither-left-nor-right/ https://fee.org/articles/neither-left-nor-right/
    - kiliantics 9y ago
      The kind of libertarianism the FEE think tank advocates for is what I would call right-libertarianism. And it's kind of an oxymoron because there is still a need for authority. How do you assert anyone's claim to private property without a centralised authority? The original libertarianism, which is a strain of socialist political philosophy, calls for decentralised authority and therefore also the end of the private ownership of property. Of course, this FEE think tank, along with all the other "Libertarian" think tanks, are funded by the likes of the Koch brothers in an effort to legitimise the deregulation of their industries. There is no requirement for it to make any logical sense, just to appear as if it does so that legislation can have some semblance of an intellectual backing.

briandear 9y ago

And Soros funded groups are different? Come on now. There are plenty of think tanks that are supported by anti-capitalist interests as well. It feels to me like “Koch Brothers” is some kind of socialist dog whistle to rile people up. It’s like mentioning Rush Limbaugh: people get riled up over just the name, but it’s highly likely most people have never heard his show — just cherry picked, out of context quotes that are like red-meat to the starving tigers of left wing interest groups. To be fair, the right has their dog whistles too. Mention Nancy Pelosi or George Soros and the right loses their mind as well. Acting like think tanks are some sort of capitalist conspiracy is just ridiculous.

tptacek 9y ago
The comment you replied to wasn't great, but you took what was worst about it and dialed it up to 11.
- norikki 9y ago
  I agree. Soros and the Koch bros are two sides of the same coin. They both advocate pro-globalization policies, Soros the social aspects, and Koch the economic aspects. It's clear that globalism has massively benefitted the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the lower and middle class, and one way they justify the madness is by funding these propaganda organizations. What bugs me is how often reports from "Think Tanks" and NGOs are uncritically reported as news by the media without disclosing their donors.
- spikels 9y ago
  But given your politics you would say that. Right? It would be really nice to see people criticizing their own side when they are out of line. But these days loyalty to ones tribe seems much much more important than being objective. Not a good development IMHO.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
jacobolus 9y ago
Nancy Pelosi is a mainstream center-left Democrat who just happens to be a woman (!) from San Francisco (!) in a position of power, which gets some people in a tizzy. Most of the outrage about whatever it is she’s saying or doing this week is manufactured by a propaganda machine. The Koch Brothers, by contrast, have a self-serving radical fringe ideology and no public accountability whatsoever, but because they are billionaires who have organized with other billionaires, can spend huge amounts of money in a subversive campaign to make their fringe ideas seem respectable. Have you ever heard Limbaugh’s show? My grandfather once was a reasonable, competent, practical mainstream Republican (worked in the White House during the Nixon and Ford administrations), but 20 years of listening to Limbaugh and later Fox News turned him into a ranting conspiracy theorist.

gbacon 9y ago

Left and right are flavors of authoritarianism. Far right and libertarian are not synonymous.

alphapapa 9y ago
Left and right are degrees of authoritarianism, e.g. libertarian is far right, and nazism and communism are far left. Nazism and communism would be flavors of authoritarianism.
coliveira 9y ago
And this itself is a piece of propaganda spread by libertarian think tanks.
kiliantics 9y ago
You have no idea what you're talking about, nor do the people that responded to you it seems. Authoritarianism is completely orthogonal to the "left-right" axis of political philosophy. There is a libertarian left (anarchism) and libertarian right (Ayn Rand style American libertarianism), as well as authoritarian left (marxist-leninist style socialism) and authoritarian right (fascism). politicalcompass.org
- gbacon 9y ago
  I am just a random know-nothing Internet guy. Leonard E. Read, who started the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), has better credentials. “Left” and “right” are each descriptive of authoritarian positions. Liberty has no horizontal relationship to authoritarianism. Libertarianism’s relationship to authoritarianism is vertical; it is up from the muck of men enslaving man. But, let’s begin at the beginning … Source: “Neither Left Nor Right,” https://fee.org/articles/neither-left-nor-right/ https://fee.org/articles/neither-left-nor-right/
  - kiliantics 9y ago
    The kind of libertarianism the FEE think tank advocates for is what I would call right-libertarianism. And it's kind of an oxymoron because there is still a need for authority. How do you assert anyone's claim to private property without a centralised authority? The original libertarianism, which is a strain of socialist political philosophy, calls for decentralised authority and therefore also the end of the private ownership of property. Of course, this FEE think tank, along with all the other "Libertarian" think tanks, are funded by the likes of the Koch brothers in an effort to legitimise the deregulation of their industries. There is no requirement for it to make any logical sense, just to appear as if it does so that legislation can have some semblance of an intellectual backing.