David Koch: A Poor Fit For The Pigeonhole They Cut For Him
Understanding a libertarian, and especially an extremely wealthy libertarian,takes a little thought, especially if you're on the left.
The cartoon evil version is just too easy to leap to, so that's what many people do.
But the late David Koch is an example of one who was widely hard to pigeonhole for anyone who delved about two inches down into what he stood for. At City Journal, James Piereson and Naomi Schaefer Riley write:
What is it about David Koch that inspired such hatred? "We live in the world that he helped build, and it is on fire," wrote Sarah Jones in New York, denouncing Koch's "monstrous legacy." In Esquire, Charles Pierce writes: "Except for his surviving brother, Charles, no man had a worse effect on American politics since the death of John C. Calhoun. Every malignancy currently afflicting us can be traced in one way or another into their wallets, and that's not even to mention the lasting damage they've done to the planet as a whole."This is the kind of language that religious cults reserve for heretics and apostates--and in many ways, David and Charles Koch were blasphemers to the liberal orthodoxy. They believed in smaller government and thus criticized the welfare state, excessive taxation, and a great deal of government regulation. At the same time, they criticized America's wars abroad, along with high levels of defense spending, and were sympathetic to the causes of gay rights and gay marriage. They were consistent in their views across a range of issues, antagonizing liberals but also vexing conservatives. The claim that David Koch was a reflexive right-winger is a caricature of his beliefs.
The Kochs believed in smaller government. Whether it was gay marriage or land wars in Asia, they consistently argued that less government intervention would produce freer and happier people. Their support for drug legalization and abortion rights irked plenty of conservatives, but it drove few over the edge as their support for lower taxes and greater school choice did for liberals. Perhaps nothing irked liberals more, though, than the Kochs' fight for less environmental regulation. Blaming Charles and David Koch for singlehandedly destroying the rainforests or raising the temperature of the earth seems to be a common theme among critics--an attribution of immense power beyond the capacity of any man or family or company.
It's certainly true that Koch-funded scholars and think tanks have done a great deal to question received wisdom on climate science and the contention that government regulation will improve air and water quality more than, say, technological progress. (The Manhattan Institute has received donations from the Kochs, and David Koch briefly served on its board.) But what's worse, in critics' view, is that the Kochs' investment in the world of ideas was not really ideological. It was, they allege, merely a way for them to make more money.
Jones explains, for example, that the Kochs have opposed unions because "unions cut into a corporation's bottom line; they make it slightly more difficult for lowly businessmen to purchase Park Avenue penthouses worth millions." It does not occur to her to ask an obvious question: "When you're worth $50 billion, is it really worth your time to push right-to-work laws just because you want a bigger apartment?"
In fact, one easy way for the uber-wealthy to improve their bottom line is simply to keep the money they already have. David Koch, however, was extremely generous to cultural institutions in New York City that few libertarians or Tea Party advocates would care to patronize. A decade ago, he donated $100 million to modernize Lincoln Center's New York State Theater building in support of the opera and ballet companies that perform there. He gave $20 million to the American Museum of Natural History and pledged $10 million or more to renovate the plaza and fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In addition, he donated millions to New York Presbyterian Hospital, the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and other institutions conducting medical research. These donations merely scratch the surface of his wide-ranging philanthropy. If David Koch was selfish or stingy with his money, he had a strange way of expressing it.
The best is the line about the apartment.
Look fairly at the guy and you see he was a man who made the world a better place because he was in it.
Jones explains, for example, that the Kochs have opposed unions
I oppose unions because Teamsters killed the Twinkie
lujlp at August 27, 2019 11:33 PM
The Koch crime is they were rich people who didn’t bend the knee to the left and gave to non leftist politics.
Joe j at August 28, 2019 3:54 AM
There can be no nuance. Because if there is nuance, one can not simply deem their ideological opponents as "literally Hitler" and deem it ok to "punch a Nazi".
I R A Darth Aggie at August 28, 2019 5:57 AM
David Koch was a William F. Buckley conservative. Both supported and defended the liberal arts, while decrying the intellectual heft of the liberal elite. As Kevin D. Williamson, pointed out in his tribute to Koch, "There was a time when some conservatives were conservatives because they cared about high culture, not in spite of it."
The Left does not know what to do with conservatives whom they cannot caricature as knuckle-dragging rednecks. So, they demonize the Koch Brothers even more stridently than they demonize Bubba.
Conan the Grammarian at August 28, 2019 6:36 AM
Conan, I was about to point out the Buckley connection. David Koch was sometimes called out by certain people on the Right for not being "a good conservative". He certainly wasn't a social conservative, at least not as the term is understood today.
Williamson and the National Review gang are still trying to figure out which way is up, in the era of Trump populism. Some of their ideas have been exposed as outmoded enabling of the Left. They deserve criticism for that. However, when they point out that conservatism doesn't currently have a good working definition, they have a point. Lots of things are changing on the Right. Part of this is because the Right is where the big tent is now; it's where most of the meaningful intellectual debate is taking place.
The Trumpian attitude has been, to an extent, "win first; figure out what to do with it later". To an extent, this was a necessary correction to a GOP leadership that seemed more invested in appearing intellectual than in actually implementing any of its ideas. Talk is cheap; governing is hard. Lots of good things, and a few bad things, are taking place under the Trump umbrella. It's going to take some time to develop a new working philosophy that fuses the "intellectual" Right with the new working-class Right.
Williamson made a point of the fact that some people on the Right regarded Koch's support of the arts as fru-fru elitism. In that article, Williamson walked right past the issue several times and failed to see it. The issue is: people don't want art that sneers at them. And that's where most of the fine arts are today. Fix that, and you get people interested in the arts again. Maybe this is the way to solve the perpetual National Endowment for the Arts dilemma. Instead of terminating it, double its budget -- and then, by force, reorient it away from the collections of empty wine bottles and cigarette butts posing as art, and back towards actual art. Get the NEA out of NY and LA, and out into the heartland, supporting local galleries and regional museums. Move its headquarters out of Washington to, say, Cincinnati or Omaha.
Koch was a product of his time. His ideas aren't invalid now, but they need extension and updating into the Trump era.
Cousin Dave at August 28, 2019 7:01 AM
The issue is: people don't want art that sneers at them. And that's where most of the fine arts are today. Fix that, and you get people interested in the arts again. Maybe this is the way to solve the perpetual National Endowment for the Arts dilemma. Instead of terminating it, double its budget -- and then, by force, reorient it away from the collections of empty wine bottles and cigarette butts posing as art, and back towards actual art. ~ Cousin Dave at August 28, 2019 7:01 AM
You have a point about art. Somewhere along the way, the main aim of the artist became to shock the viewer, to intimidate instead of to illuminate.
Although, to be fair, throughout history there have always been a number of artists to whom shocking an audience seemed a laudable goal; Hieronymus Bosch, for instance. They were they exception then; today, they seem to be the rule.
Remaking the NEA is not the answer. Privatizing it may be. It should not be a political body, neither in its make-up nor the appointment of its director. When you tie politics to art, you get propaganda. Funding the arts, if we agree it should be done by the government, should be divorced from politics.
Blame FDR. The platoon of photographers he deployed to glorify his New Deal tied modern art to Democrats for decades. And gave the New Deal a propaganda tool that Goebbels himself would have killed to have.
Conan the Grammarian at August 28, 2019 7:26 AM
Pro Gay Marriage and drug legalization. Yup, that sounds ultra conservative. The Koch brothers are convenient bogey men to the left who have no problem with billionaire giving money to political parties as long as it is solely to their side. Otherwise that money is corrupting the political process and must stopped at all cost.
Shtetl G at August 28, 2019 10:35 AM
Footnote: David Koch was the VP candidate on the 1980 Libertarian ticket, allowing him to spend as much of his own money as he wished on the campaign. This was far in excess of what the LP had been able to raise in 1972 (its first year) or 1976, and got us all the way up to. . .
Drum roll, please. . .
1% of the vote!
Rex Little at August 28, 2019 4:07 PM
Remind me again about what public works the Clintons and the Obamas have funded. Besides their monuments to themselves.
KateC at August 28, 2019 6:17 PM
> It's going to take some time
> to develop a new working philosophy
> that fuses the "intellectual" Right
> with the new working-class Right.
More time than will be available.
Crid at August 30, 2019 12:47 AM
I suspect part of the reason the Koch's supported smaller government is because it was cheaper to purchase.
Artemis at August 30, 2019 9:59 AM
Leave a comment