8 ms·

Soros, Charles Koch fund non-interventionist think tank

92 points by andybak 7y ago

buboard 7y ago
I laughed at their street cred.
protomyth 7y ago
Well, since the Koch brothers are Libertarians who don't want the US in any foreign entanglements and Soros doesn't like any of the modern wars, I don't see what is so surprising. Billionaire activists like to set these things up. I dearly wish we get back to something reasonable in headlines.
- turk73 7y ago
  I know the Kochs contribute to Cato, but it's a stretch to call them "libertarian" these days. I think they're opportunistic oligarchs. They meddle with their money. I wish they wouldn't. Running things in a democratic fashion would require the rich to have far less influence than they currently do. Buying elections and policies is not democratic. I have never understood US interventionism. It seems to have more to do with corporations making money than it does anything else. It's corporo-colonialism. Ugly, ugly business where intelligence agencies go in and destabilize countries in order to pave the way for higher levels of intervention and then the soft, undeclared wars start with Hellfire missiles killing off the opposition, and other targeted types of killings.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    They meddle with their money. Yes, they do, and that doesn't disqualify them as Libertarian. I assume by using "libertarian" in quotes and lower case, you have some meaning beyond the actual Libertarian Party. They fund the Libertarian magazine Reason. Spending money to influence people is not a conflict.
  - archgoon 7y ago
    Libertarians support individual liberty and constrained government; they don't necessarily support democracy (though this does not necessarily imply supporting dictatorship). https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-democracy-cant/ https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-democ... From some libertarians perspective; it's more important to constrain the power of government than to do so in a democratic fashion. The proposed ways of enforcing constrained government vary considerably though. EDIT: Apparently defining terms and explaining view points does not meet the high standards of hacker news comments. If I have misrepresented any perspectives my apologies.
    - 0815test 7y ago
      Democracy in the absence of individual liberty and constrained government simply doesn't work - it becomes corruption. While admittedly, few non-democratic polities pursue liberal values, the ones that occasionally did throughout history seemed to feature a similar quality of governance to modern liberal democracies. Their main (and quite significant) problem was instability over time, and that's what democratization mostly addresses.
  - imglorp 7y ago
    The rich have yet more influence than their 1-pct selves: they also direct all of their corporations which lobby heavily as well, as a force multiplier. So an individual citizen's vote has very little influence compared to those gargantuan forces.
m0zg 7y ago
Trump has already ended that policy.
- brighter2morrow 7y ago
  Yes but when the next President comes in we will want to have had Trump's anti-war policies to have been cemented in place.
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    Which policies are you referring to?
- archgoon 7y ago
  Although the Trump administration has voiced a desire to extract themselves from the existing military engagements in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, they have not yet done so. (As a side note, the previous administration also expressed a similar desire). Thus it is perhaps premature to claim that the current administration has 'ended' the policy. However, this misses the point that the goal of the proposed institute is to: > ... promote an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing. Unfortunately, the current negotiation tactics being pursued against, say, Iran, do not fall under this new style of diplomacy. I'm sure other examples may come to mind.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    It's weird to take tools off the table, like sanctions. It would reduce diplomacy to begging "pretty please".
    - archgoon 7y ago
      I'll be interested in seeing what the proposed alternative will be.
    - effie 7y ago
      "Pretty please" is actually a good default approach for a state X wanting something from another state Y; it shows respect and builds mutual trust. There is no guarantee that request will be fulfilled, but it can start a dialog "we want something in return" that can result in mutual accommodation. When the state X throws out past agreements, starts making higher demands, it is playing very risky game.
soulofmischief 7y ago
> They could be seen as polar opposites. Soros is an old-fashioned New Deal liberal. The Koch brothers are fire-breathing right-wingers who dream of cutting taxes and dismantling government. As we all know, the best way to start a piece of political journalism is to instill and propagate hyperbolic and oversimplified views.
- webkike 7y ago
  The only part of that statement that is hyperbolic is that they literally breathe fire
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Except they give Soros the old-fashioned (harmless New Dealer type) moniker and they conjure dragon imagery for the right winger. Why is it so hard for journalists to write neutrally these days?
    - 13415 7y ago
      Everyone is biased, including journalists and you.
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        Indeed, everyone is biased and so am I. But the job of journalism is to at least make an attempt at stripping away that personal bias. That takes a self-awareness, respect for the other side and humbleness that modern journalists seem to lack.
        fwip 7y ago
        I'd rather plain bias than false equivalency.
        Veen 7y ago
        False dichotomy. We can take practical steps to reduce bias, even it we can't eliminate bias altogether.
gaze 7y ago
What could Koch materially stand to gain from this?
- crystalmeph 7y ago
  My guess is that you stand to make more money long term by trading with everybody. War profiteering is great money today, but I don’t think the Koch brothers take the stereotypical quarter-by-quarter approach to capitalism.
  - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
    but I don't think the Koch brothers take the stereotypical quarter-by-quarter approach to capitalism. No, no they don't. Their focus is much more towards long-term growth and development (and long-term sustainability, which includes treating workers well and helping them succeed) than quarter-by-quarter results.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      Exactly. Whether you agree or disagree with their position, they're not Wall Street style, short-term optimizers.
    - gaze 7y ago
      They've put massive efforts into destroying unions. They've funded mike rowe, who goes on tirades against osha. They don't care about workers at all. Then there's the consequences of these efforts such as https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/03/17/koch-compliance-georgia-pacific-plants-have-troubling-health-and-safety-record# https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/03/17/koch-complianc...
      - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
        They don't care about workers at all (Full disclosure: I know several people who work at different Koch companies) From what I've heard and experienced, there is a very different culture between the founded-by-the-Koch-brothers companies and the bought-by-the-Koch-brothers companies, mostly due to the fact that the upper levels of management were retained and kept their old ways- there is a huge difference in mentality between the old managers and bosses and the Koch ones. When it comes to injuries, Georgia Pacific was quite the beleaguered company before the Kochs bought it, too. [1] They've funded mike rowe [sic] who goes on tirades against osha [sic] To be honest, I haven't really heard about Mike Rowe, so I looked him up. A Forbes article from three days ago [2] talks about Mike Rowe and how he's working to change the perception that skilled labor is bad. In my opinion, this is good! Not everyone wants to go to college- it's not necessary to make a living (though it will likely be more physically demanding). Do I think that OSHA is a good idea? Yes. Is Mike Rowe also doing a huge favor to the morale of those who don't want to go to college? Yes. Do I agree with everything Mike Rowe has ever said? Probably not. [1] https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2003/03/10/story1.html https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2003/03/10/story... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyberk/2019/06/28/mike-rowe-uses-celebrity-influence-to-grease-the-wheel-for-skilled-labor/#503b6e50289b https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyberk/2019/06/28/mike-rowe-...
sparker72678 7y ago
At this point I’d be thrilled for any movement of policy in this direction, no matter who’s behind it.
scythe 7y ago
In fairness, both George Soros and Charles Koch have been relatively pacifist for a while now. That shouldn't be surprising: while one is a little more pro-redistribution, they're both fundamentally capitalists, and war is bad for business. (The major problem with Koch is his support of climate denialists.)
noobermin 7y ago
When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers. It's good in some sense that two oligarchs who fund various political organizations agree on something but I'd rather have actual democracy in the US.
- ethbro 7y ago
  All things in balance. The problem with strict democracy is that everyone ultimately votes to give themselves a raise. Truly competing oligarchs (ironic, given article) are certainly more democratic than Russian-style oligarchy. Edit: To the knee-jerk, I ask what the alternative is? Create a government-adjudicated omni-system to prevent democratic meddling, without loophole and completely impartial? I personally think Citizens United should be repealed and caps put in place, but let's not kid ourselves that would solve the problem.
  - TheDong 7y ago
    > The problem with strict democracy is that everyone ultimately votes to give themselves a raise. The homeless deserve a raise (aka being housed). It's not a problem when a system fights to help the average man and those that are worse off. It's a problem when the system is only helping those that are already rich.
    - hollander 7y ago
      The strange thing is that the rich profit if the poor get more money to spend. But that's indirect and long term, and that is a difficult concept for many.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      Tax cuts and entitlement boosts are both raises, couched in the respective vocabulary of the two parties. One makes few friends (and attracts few votes) by pointing out that we cannot afford something.
joyjoyjoy 7y ago
"Soros is an old-fashioned New Deal liberal" Soros is a guy I don't understand. He talks about an "open society" but finances the refugee crisis in Europe, bringing in the people that are enemies of an open society. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1546/thomas-barnett-iraq-war-primer/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1546/thomas-barnett-i...
rurban 7y ago
So now we can finally see some real power struggles at hand: The military-industrial-banking complex against a few powerful industry figures. My tip goes to the former.
ilaksh 7y ago
My understanding (which is different from most worldviews) is that the long-term military campaigns are actually a structural component of the geopolitical order and not just "policing" or "profiteering" as they are often portrayed. Actually I see it as not only a multidecade effort but spanning all the way back to the parent hegemony of Britain and continuing the tradition of empire that goes back thousands of years. I'm all for a new paradigm but I think you would actually be making a break with history in general. And then the practical side of this. The dominance of American currency and relative wealth of America has not so far been made possible by some superior ideology as it is often believed but rather by regular deployment of the most high-tech, massive and deadly weaponry ever created. You would need to get everyone to agree to the new paradigm of peace. Do we expect China to stop building out it's navy, cyberwar, AI defense, etc.? Or just maybe everyone agrees to not use their weapons? Because if not then what you are actually talking about is not a new paradigm but rather letting a new hegemony take over.
neonate 7y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20190630200023/https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/06/30/soros-and-koch-brothers-team-end-forever-war-policy/WhyENwjhG0vfo9Um6Zl0JO/story.html?event=event25 https://web.archive.org/web/20190630200023/https://www.bosto...
nikolay 7y ago
Yeah, right. We're that stupid to believe you!
rchaud 7y ago
Underwhelming to say the least considering the financial power of the two funders. Washington is full of think tanks already churning out policy papers that end up as little more than a citation on a grad student's dissertation. America's permanent war-time footing exists because of the lobbying practices of interest groups and horse-trading among members of the Congress and Senate. And, although it goes without saying, the knock-on effects of the US' previous military campaigns. As long as the influence and non-transparency of Super PACs is not addressed, nothing will change. Nice to see that they've both thrown in $500k each. That's only 1/1000th of what Super PACs and dark money groups spent in the 2016 election [0]: [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/1-4-billion-and-counting-in-spending-by-super-pacs-dark-money-groups/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/1-4-billion-and-cou...
- himeexcelanta 7y ago
  “America's permanent war-time footing exists because of the lobbying practices of interest groups and horse-trading among members of the Congress and Senate” Please elaborate. Genuinely interested on your take on this.
beloch 7y ago
A plethora of problems plaguing democratic countries (not just the U.S.) stem from money having too much influence over politics, which was a problem for democracy even in ancient Greece. You might happen to agree with Soros and Koch on this particular issue, but how about all the other times they've bought influence with money to serve their own interests? If rich people using their money to influence the government has been a problem in the past, perhaps it's not something we should be celebrating now even if this particular case seems less disgusting than is typical. I will save my applause the oligarch who puts his fortune and power to the task of reducing his own influence over government and thereby strengthening democracy.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Wouldn't most low-profile billionaires do that by default, if they don't get involved in politics?
c3534l 7y ago
There was a time when American politicians derided the notion of having a permanent military. We're now at a 1986-esque point where we have to fight our politicians against the notion of being permanently at war.
fmajid 7y ago
It’s only surprising if you adhere to the cartoonish villain theory of the Koch brothers. They are more intellectually consistent than given credit for and have funded advocacy for criminal justice reform, i.e. abolishing unnecessary incarceration, not exactly a hallmark right-wing policy.
RickJWagner 7y ago
Reminds me of recent headlines that described agreements between AOC and Ted Cruz. Truly, if you go far enough right you end up on the left, and vice-versa. This is a good thing.
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  Uh... no you don't... this isn't pacman where you come out on the other side. Many conservatives actually agreed w/ AOC on a move to limit how much credit cards and predatory loans could charge in interest... It's something that helps and benefits most of society except the predatory lending companies, and it's something not as polarized. It's easy for cross-collaborating because there's no clause on abortion, guns, no religious intertwinings... You're not gonna find many people right of libertarians calling for universal healthcare because they're magically progressive now... You're also not going to find progressives out in the leftest of the left who are also members of the KKK or think there are 'good people on both sides'... there will always be some overlap on smaller issues that aren't ideological. Ending war seems like something both sides could get behind (only reason they haven't is because of the amount of $$$ in warfare -- it's insane). I also think it's just posturing. 500k is a tiny tiny sum compared w/ what Soros and Koch spend in politics annually. They'd put up way more if they thought it was gonna go anywhere, or valuable enough to do so. Personally I don't trust either as they're both oligarch's just w/ slightly different ideologies of the perfect society (that they are trying to bring about by virtual of their extreme wealth).
  - RickJWagner 7y ago
    The KKK is pretty much dead today, isn't it? Democratic Senator Byrd was their last high profile leader, except for maybe David Duke and he's been marginalized for decades. Antifa seems like the group most likely to wear masks and attack people. (I see people are defending some person who spit on Eric Trump last weekend.) Antifa beat a journalist, and again they have defenders. So..... yes. If you go to where the hate is, left and right will be close together there. On the other side of the coin, I have many good friends on the left and the right. They are all good people. I'd imagine about half a circle away from those violent types of either political philosophy.

92 points by andybak 7y ago

I laughed at their street cred.

Well, since the Koch brothers are Libertarians who don't want the US in any foreign entanglements and Soros doesn't like any of the modern wars, I don't see what is so surprising. Billionaire activists like to set these things up. I dearly wish we get back to something reasonable in headlines.

turk73 7y ago
I know the Kochs contribute to Cato, but it's a stretch to call them "libertarian" these days. I think they're opportunistic oligarchs. They meddle with their money. I wish they wouldn't. Running things in a democratic fashion would require the rich to have far less influence than they currently do. Buying elections and policies is not democratic. I have never understood US interventionism. It seems to have more to do with corporations making money than it does anything else. It's corporo-colonialism. Ugly, ugly business where intelligence agencies go in and destabilize countries in order to pave the way for higher levels of intervention and then the soft, undeclared wars start with Hellfire missiles killing off the opposition, and other targeted types of killings.
- protomyth 7y ago
  They meddle with their money. Yes, they do, and that doesn't disqualify them as Libertarian. I assume by using "libertarian" in quotes and lower case, you have some meaning beyond the actual Libertarian Party. They fund the Libertarian magazine Reason. Spending money to influence people is not a conflict.
- archgoon 7y ago
  Libertarians support individual liberty and constrained government; they don't necessarily support democracy (though this does not necessarily imply supporting dictatorship). https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-democracy-cant/ https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-democ... From some libertarians perspective; it's more important to constrain the power of government than to do so in a democratic fashion. The proposed ways of enforcing constrained government vary considerably though. EDIT: Apparently defining terms and explaining view points does not meet the high standards of hacker news comments. If I have misrepresented any perspectives my apologies.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    Democracy in the absence of individual liberty and constrained government simply doesn't work - it becomes corruption. While admittedly, few non-democratic polities pursue liberal values, the ones that occasionally did throughout history seemed to feature a similar quality of governance to modern liberal democracies. Their main (and quite significant) problem was instability over time, and that's what democratization mostly addresses.
- imglorp 7y ago
  The rich have yet more influence than their 1-pct selves: they also direct all of their corporations which lobby heavily as well, as a force multiplier. So an individual citizen's vote has very little influence compared to those gargantuan forces.

m0zg 7y ago

Trump has already ended that policy.

brighter2morrow 7y ago
Yes but when the next President comes in we will want to have had Trump's anti-war policies to have been cemented in place.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  Which policies are you referring to?
archgoon 7y ago
Although the Trump administration has voiced a desire to extract themselves from the existing military engagements in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, they have not yet done so. (As a side note, the previous administration also expressed a similar desire). Thus it is perhaps premature to claim that the current administration has 'ended' the policy. However, this misses the point that the goal of the proposed institute is to: > ... promote an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing. Unfortunately, the current negotiation tactics being pursued against, say, Iran, do not fall under this new style of diplomacy. I'm sure other examples may come to mind.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  It's weird to take tools off the table, like sanctions. It would reduce diplomacy to begging "pretty please".
  - archgoon 7y ago
    I'll be interested in seeing what the proposed alternative will be.
  - effie 7y ago
    "Pretty please" is actually a good default approach for a state X wanting something from another state Y; it shows respect and builds mutual trust. There is no guarantee that request will be fulfilled, but it can start a dialog "we want something in return" that can result in mutual accommodation. When the state X throws out past agreements, starts making higher demands, it is playing very risky game.

soulofmischief 7y ago

> They could be seen as polar opposites. Soros is an old-fashioned New Deal liberal. The Koch brothers are fire-breathing right-wingers who dream of cutting taxes and dismantling government. As we all know, the best way to start a piece of political journalism is to instill and propagate hyperbolic and oversimplified views.

webkike 7y ago
The only part of that statement that is hyperbolic is that they literally breathe fire
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Except they give Soros the old-fashioned (harmless New Dealer type) moniker and they conjure dragon imagery for the right winger. Why is it so hard for journalists to write neutrally these days?
  - 13415 7y ago
    Everyone is biased, including journalists and you.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      Indeed, everyone is biased and so am I. But the job of journalism is to at least make an attempt at stripping away that personal bias. That takes a self-awareness, respect for the other side and humbleness that modern journalists seem to lack.
      - fwip 7y ago
        I'd rather plain bias than false equivalency.
        Veen 7y ago
        False dichotomy. We can take practical steps to reduce bias, even it we can't eliminate bias altogether.

gaze 7y ago

What could Koch materially stand to gain from this?

crystalmeph 7y ago
My guess is that you stand to make more money long term by trading with everybody. War profiteering is great money today, but I don’t think the Koch brothers take the stereotypical quarter-by-quarter approach to capitalism.
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  but I don't think the Koch brothers take the stereotypical quarter-by-quarter approach to capitalism. No, no they don't. Their focus is much more towards long-term growth and development (and long-term sustainability, which includes treating workers well and helping them succeed) than quarter-by-quarter results.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Exactly. Whether you agree or disagree with their position, they're not Wall Street style, short-term optimizers.
  - gaze 7y ago
    They've put massive efforts into destroying unions. They've funded mike rowe, who goes on tirades against osha. They don't care about workers at all. Then there's the consequences of these efforts such as https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/03/17/koch-compliance-georgia-pacific-plants-have-troubling-health-and-safety-record# https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/03/17/koch-complianc...
    - HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
      They don't care about workers at all (Full disclosure: I know several people who work at different Koch companies) From what I've heard and experienced, there is a very different culture between the founded-by-the-Koch-brothers companies and the bought-by-the-Koch-brothers companies, mostly due to the fact that the upper levels of management were retained and kept their old ways- there is a huge difference in mentality between the old managers and bosses and the Koch ones. When it comes to injuries, Georgia Pacific was quite the beleaguered company before the Kochs bought it, too. [1] They've funded mike rowe [sic] who goes on tirades against osha [sic] To be honest, I haven't really heard about Mike Rowe, so I looked him up. A Forbes article from three days ago [2] talks about Mike Rowe and how he's working to change the perception that skilled labor is bad. In my opinion, this is good! Not everyone wants to go to college- it's not necessary to make a living (though it will likely be more physically demanding). Do I think that OSHA is a good idea? Yes. Is Mike Rowe also doing a huge favor to the morale of those who don't want to go to college? Yes. Do I agree with everything Mike Rowe has ever said? Probably not. [1] https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2003/03/10/story1.html https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2003/03/10/story... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyberk/2019/06/28/mike-rowe-uses-celebrity-influence-to-grease-the-wheel-for-skilled-labor/#503b6e50289b https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyberk/2019/06/28/mike-rowe-...

sparker72678 7y ago

At this point I’d be thrilled for any movement of policy in this direction, no matter who’s behind it.

scythe 7y ago

In fairness, both George Soros and Charles Koch have been relatively pacifist for a while now. That shouldn't be surprising: while one is a little more pro-redistribution, they're both fundamentally capitalists, and war is bad for business. (The major problem with Koch is his support of climate denialists.)

noobermin 7y ago

When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers. It's good in some sense that two oligarchs who fund various political organizations agree on something but I'd rather have actual democracy in the US.

ethbro 7y ago
All things in balance. The problem with strict democracy is that everyone ultimately votes to give themselves a raise. Truly competing oligarchs (ironic, given article) are certainly more democratic than Russian-style oligarchy. Edit: To the knee-jerk, I ask what the alternative is? Create a government-adjudicated omni-system to prevent democratic meddling, without loophole and completely impartial? I personally think Citizens United should be repealed and caps put in place, but let's not kid ourselves that would solve the problem.
- TheDong 7y ago
  > The problem with strict democracy is that everyone ultimately votes to give themselves a raise. The homeless deserve a raise (aka being housed). It's not a problem when a system fights to help the average man and those that are worse off. It's a problem when the system is only helping those that are already rich.
  - hollander 7y ago
    The strange thing is that the rich profit if the poor get more money to spend. But that's indirect and long term, and that is a difficult concept for many.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Tax cuts and entitlement boosts are both raises, couched in the respective vocabulary of the two parties. One makes few friends (and attracts few votes) by pointing out that we cannot afford something.

joyjoyjoy 7y ago

"Soros is an old-fashioned New Deal liberal" Soros is a guy I don't understand. He talks about an "open society" but finances the refugee crisis in Europe, bringing in the people that are enemies of an open society. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1546/thomas-barnett-iraq-war-primer/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1546/thomas-barnett-i...

rurban 7y ago

So now we can finally see some real power struggles at hand: The military-industrial-banking complex against a few powerful industry figures. My tip goes to the former.

ilaksh 7y ago

My understanding (which is different from most worldviews) is that the long-term military campaigns are actually a structural component of the geopolitical order and not just "policing" or "profiteering" as they are often portrayed. Actually I see it as not only a multidecade effort but spanning all the way back to the parent hegemony of Britain and continuing the tradition of empire that goes back thousands of years. I'm all for a new paradigm but I think you would actually be making a break with history in general. And then the practical side of this. The dominance of American currency and relative wealth of America has not so far been made possible by some superior ideology as it is often believed but rather by regular deployment of the most high-tech, massive and deadly weaponry ever created. You would need to get everyone to agree to the new paradigm of peace. Do we expect China to stop building out it's navy, cyberwar, AI defense, etc.? Or just maybe everyone agrees to not use their weapons? Because if not then what you are actually talking about is not a new paradigm but rather letting a new hegemony take over.

neonate 7y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20190630200023/https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/06/30/soros-and-koch-brothers-team-end-forever-war-policy/WhyENwjhG0vfo9Um6Zl0JO/story.html?event=event25 https://web.archive.org/web/20190630200023/https://www.bosto...

nikolay 7y ago

Yeah, right. We're that stupid to believe you!

rchaud 7y ago

Underwhelming to say the least considering the financial power of the two funders. Washington is full of think tanks already churning out policy papers that end up as little more than a citation on a grad student's dissertation. America's permanent war-time footing exists because of the lobbying practices of interest groups and horse-trading among members of the Congress and Senate. And, although it goes without saying, the knock-on effects of the US' previous military campaigns. As long as the influence and non-transparency of Super PACs is not addressed, nothing will change. Nice to see that they've both thrown in $500k each. That's only 1/1000th of what Super PACs and dark money groups spent in the 2016 election [0]: [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/1-4-billion-and-counting-in-spending-by-super-pacs-dark-money-groups/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/1-4-billion-and-cou...

himeexcelanta 7y ago
“America's permanent war-time footing exists because of the lobbying practices of interest groups and horse-trading among members of the Congress and Senate” Please elaborate. Genuinely interested on your take on this.

beloch 7y ago

A plethora of problems plaguing democratic countries (not just the U.S.) stem from money having too much influence over politics, which was a problem for democracy even in ancient Greece. You might happen to agree with Soros and Koch on this particular issue, but how about all the other times they've bought influence with money to serve their own interests? If rich people using their money to influence the government has been a problem in the past, perhaps it's not something we should be celebrating now even if this particular case seems less disgusting than is typical. I will save my applause the oligarch who puts his fortune and power to the task of reducing his own influence over government and thereby strengthening democracy.

skybrian 7y ago
Wouldn't most low-profile billionaires do that by default, if they don't get involved in politics?

c3534l 7y ago

There was a time when American politicians derided the notion of having a permanent military. We're now at a 1986-esque point where we have to fight our politicians against the notion of being permanently at war.

fmajid 7y ago

It’s only surprising if you adhere to the cartoonish villain theory of the Koch brothers. They are more intellectually consistent than given credit for and have funded advocacy for criminal justice reform, i.e. abolishing unnecessary incarceration, not exactly a hallmark right-wing policy.

RickJWagner 7y ago

Reminds me of recent headlines that described agreements between AOC and Ted Cruz. Truly, if you go far enough right you end up on the left, and vice-versa. This is a good thing.

gremlinsinc 7y ago
Uh... no you don't... this isn't pacman where you come out on the other side. Many conservatives actually agreed w/ AOC on a move to limit how much credit cards and predatory loans could charge in interest... It's something that helps and benefits most of society except the predatory lending companies, and it's something not as polarized. It's easy for cross-collaborating because there's no clause on abortion, guns, no religious intertwinings... You're not gonna find many people right of libertarians calling for universal healthcare because they're magically progressive now... You're also not going to find progressives out in the leftest of the left who are also members of the KKK or think there are 'good people on both sides'... there will always be some overlap on smaller issues that aren't ideological. Ending war seems like something both sides could get behind (only reason they haven't is because of the amount of $$$ in warfare -- it's insane). I also think it's just posturing. 500k is a tiny tiny sum compared w/ what Soros and Koch spend in politics annually. They'd put up way more if they thought it was gonna go anywhere, or valuable enough to do so. Personally I don't trust either as they're both oligarch's just w/ slightly different ideologies of the perfect society (that they are trying to bring about by virtual of their extreme wealth).
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  The KKK is pretty much dead today, isn't it? Democratic Senator Byrd was their last high profile leader, except for maybe David Duke and he's been marginalized for decades. Antifa seems like the group most likely to wear masks and attack people. (I see people are defending some person who spit on Eric Trump last weekend.) Antifa beat a journalist, and again they have defenders. So..... yes. If you go to where the hate is, left and right will be close together there. On the other side of the coin, I have many good friends on the left and the right. They are all good people. I'd imagine about half a circle away from those violent types of either political philosophy.