4 ms·

I don't see the big news here unless one is strictly going by ideological fixation. A political organization can have both grassroots elements and be funded by

I don't see the big news here unless one is strictly going by ideological fixation. A political organization can have both grassroots elements and be funded by wealthy patrons. There are MANY democrat, progressive organizations in the U.S and elsewhere that regularly receive funding and support from billionaires of similar political persuasion, which is perfectly fine and good. But oh the horror! If it happens to be a conservative group and some billionaire funded part of it, then its a deep dark conspiracy all of a sudden. Talk about constructing politically tainted narrative. Are conservative-type groups somehow less morally clean for receiving support from wealthy patrons than progressive groups for receiving support from wealthy patrons of their own? Does being a billionaire who feels an affinity for conservative or free market causes make that person nefarious because they decide to financially support them? Why except for reasons of purely political emotional dislike does it not apply equally when any number of billionaire pro-democrat types regularly fund projects and groups that share their affinities?

brnt 5y ago
if you would research this a bit more, you will find that the dollar number favour a particular side.
didibus 5y ago
I think it depends how you see the political divide. Some people see the divide as a class divide between people with money and power, and those without. From that point of view, there is a sense that people with money are trying to retain power through recruiting a portion of people without money to be on their side in order to market the policies that benefit them. They'll see this "recruiting" being done by the rich generally using an appeal to emotion, scape goating, group endoctrination, religious endoctrination, propaganda, and fear mongering techniques. This example with the tea party is seen as another such attempt, where the rich pays non-rich people to recruit others to their cause, making the others believe this isn't driven by a rich person, but instead from their own peers, which is kind of what grassroots is. So from that point of view, if a rich person is donating to a conservative movement it does seem to be against the non-rich populace. It looks like scheming from the rich in order to uphold their class. This also isn't without historical precedent, conservatism actually comes from the old aristocracy, they invented conservatism, the idea that hereditary power and inheritance are the way of life, and thus those traditions should remain, as a way to keep clinging on their riches and power they were fearful of losing while the various revolutions in the United States and France were happening. Nowadays, there's more to conservatism then just that, but some people still see that aspect of it as the continued class war, as every rich powerful person fears losing their power and riches and thus constantly try to protect themselves through conservatism.
- helloworld11 5y ago
  I don't quite buy the validity of this narrative as far as things stand today. I see what you mean but currently there is a powerful media presence in the west that favors what could best be called anti-conservative causes. There are also numerous powerful, wealthy people, corporations and institutions with progressive tendencies in their leadership or mentality who donate large amounts to grassroots and other organizations that share these tendencies. They too are all working to retain or accumulate power. This is all perfectly fine, and good even but let's not keep painting them as some kinds of underdogs against the big bad conservative shady finance plutocrats. The numbers don't even bear that out. In both ases, there is scheming in that someone with an agenda wants to promote that agenda by using their wealth to prop up those will help them support their posture. It's disingenuous to consider it relatively altruistic for the left but immediately a sign of trying to retain power when it happens with the other ideological tendency.

brnt 5y ago

if you would research this a bit more, you will find that the dollar number favour a particular side.

didibus 5y ago

I think it depends how you see the political divide. Some people see the divide as a class divide between people with money and power, and those without. From that point of view, there is a sense that people with money are trying to retain power through recruiting a portion of people without money to be on their side in order to market the policies that benefit them. They'll see this "recruiting" being done by the rich generally using an appeal to emotion, scape goating, group endoctrination, religious endoctrination, propaganda, and fear mongering techniques. This example with the tea party is seen as another such attempt, where the rich pays non-rich people to recruit others to their cause, making the others believe this isn't driven by a rich person, but instead from their own peers, which is kind of what grassroots is. So from that point of view, if a rich person is donating to a conservative movement it does seem to be against the non-rich populace. It looks like scheming from the rich in order to uphold their class. This also isn't without historical precedent, conservatism actually comes from the old aristocracy, they invented conservatism, the idea that hereditary power and inheritance are the way of life, and thus those traditions should remain, as a way to keep clinging on their riches and power they were fearful of losing while the various revolutions in the United States and France were happening. Nowadays, there's more to conservatism then just that, but some people still see that aspect of it as the continued class war, as every rich powerful person fears losing their power and riches and thus constantly try to protect themselves through conservatism.

helloworld11 5y ago
I don't quite buy the validity of this narrative as far as things stand today. I see what you mean but currently there is a powerful media presence in the west that favors what could best be called anti-conservative causes. There are also numerous powerful, wealthy people, corporations and institutions with progressive tendencies in their leadership or mentality who donate large amounts to grassroots and other organizations that share these tendencies. They too are all working to retain or accumulate power. This is all perfectly fine, and good even but let's not keep painting them as some kinds of underdogs against the big bad conservative shady finance plutocrats. The numbers don't even bear that out. In both ases, there is scheming in that someone with an agenda wants to promote that agenda by using their wealth to prop up those will help them support their posture. It's disingenuous to consider it relatively altruistic for the left but immediately a sign of trying to retain power when it happens with the other ideological tendency.