Are YOU Politically Correct? Everything Cool With The Trigger Alerts Lately?

Yesterday, libertarian think tank CATO released some interesting polling, their annual State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America, which seeks to measure attitudes about free speech, campus speech, religious liberty and tolerance of political expression. You may not agree with their conclusions but they're worth paying attention to because they help explain the non-Fox News listeners' hatred for Hillary, Pelosi and other Democrats beyond just knee-jerk defensive assumptions about the sad state of American voters' intelligence. Let's start with this one: 71% of Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have. Just 28% of Americans believe that political correctness has done more to help people avoid offending others.

The consequences are personal-- 58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.

Democrats are unique, however, in that a slim majority (53%) do not feel the need to self-censor. Conversely, strong majorities of Republicans (73%) and independents (58%) say they keep some political beliefs to themselves.

It follows that a solid majority (59%) of Americans think people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those deeply offensive to others. On the other hand, 40% think government should prevent hate speech. Despite this, the survey also found Americans willing to censor, regulate, or punish a wide variety of speech and expression they personally find offensive:

• 51% of staunch liberals say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis.
• 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
• 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people’s preferred gender pronouns.
• 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
• 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
• 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.

Americans also can’t agree what speech is hateful, offensive, or simply a political opinion:

• 59% of liberals say it’s hate speech to say transgender people have a mental disorder; only 17% of conservatives agree.
• 39% of conservatives believe it’s hate speech to say the police are racist; only 17% of liberals agree.
• 80% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say illegal immigrants should be deported; only 36% of conservatives agree.
• 87% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say women shouldn’t fight in military combat roles, while 47% of conservatives agree.
• 90% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say homosexuality is a sin, while 47% of conservatives agree. 

Americans Oppose Hate Speech Bans, But Say Hate Speech is Morally Unacceptable

Although Americans oppose (59%) outright bans on public hate speech, that doesn’t mean they think hate speech is acceptable. An overwhelming majority (79%) say it’s “morally unacceptable” to say offensive things about racial or religious groups.

Black, Hispanic, and White Americans Disagree about How Free Speech Operates

African Americans and Hispanics are more likely than white Americans to believe:

• Free speech does more to protect majority opinions, not minority viewpoints (59%, 49%, 34%).
• Supporting someone’s right to say racist things is as bad as holding racist views yourself (65%, 61%, 34%).
• People who don’t respect others don’t deserve the right of free speech (59%, 62%, 36%).
• Hate speech is an act of violence (75%, 72%, 46%).
• Our society can prohibit hate speech and still protect free speech (69%, 71%, 49%).
• People usually have bad intentions when they express offensive opinions (70%, 75%, 52%).

However, black, Hispanic, and white Americans agree that free speech ensures the truth will ultimately prevail (68%, 70%, 66%). Majorities also agree that it would be difficult to ban hate speech since people can’t agree what hate speech is (59%, 77%, 87%).

Two-Thirds Say Colleges Aren’t Doing Enough to Teach the Value of Free Speech

Two-thirds (66%) of Americans say colleges and universities aren’t doing enough to teach young Americans today about the value of free speech. When asked which is more important, 65% say colleges should “expose students to all types of viewpoints, even if they are offensive or biased against certain groups.” About a third (34%) say colleges should “prohibit offensive speech that is biased against certain groups.”

But Americans are conflicted. Despite their desire for viewpoint diversity, a slim majority (53%) also agree that “colleges have an obligation to protect students from offensive speech and ideas that could create a difficult learning environment.” This share rises to 66% among Democrats, but 57% of Republicans disagree.

76% Say Students Shutting Down Offensive Speakers Reveals “Broader Pattern” of How Students Cope

More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans say that recent campus protests and cancellations of controversial speakers are part of a “broader pattern” of how college students deal with offensive ideas. About a quarter (22%) think these protests and shutdowns are simply isolated incidents.

However, when asked about specific speakers, about half of Americans with college experience think a wide variety should not be allowed to speak at their college:

• A speaker who says that all white people are racist (51%)
• A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50%)
• A speaker who says that transgender people have a mental disorder (50%)
• A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49%)
• A speaker who says all Christians are backward and brainwashed (49%)
• A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48%)
• A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48%)
• A speaker who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41%)
• A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40%)

Are political correct demands the reason Trump does as well as he does? Over and above what this survey shows, I'd say it's a real factor. No one likes being told how to live their lives and what they can say and not say. Civil society has to somehow figure out authoritarian tendencies of snowflakes with a functioning democracy with rapidly fraying shared values. Trump will only acerbate the mess as part of the divisiveness he cultivates to expand his power. Eye on the ball!

Why Would A Right Wing Extremist Like Steve Knight Vote To Give Obama Unlimited Power Through Fast Track Authority?

No one should have expected anything good coming from conservative New Dem Kathleen Rice when she joined the Republicans and other conservative Democrats to try to pass Fast Track authorization. John MacArthur, writing Friday for Harper's, said, "Rice last week reversed her opposition to fast-track the TPP. If history repeats itself she won’t be the only member of Congress to betray her working class and labor-union supporters."

The vote buying to pass fast-track authority in the House of Representatives-- legislation that will speed up secret negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement so dear to President Obama and his Wall Street and corporate allies-- has evidently begun in earnest. The latest recipient of White House largesse, Rep. Kathleen Rice (D., N.Y.) last week reversed her opposition to fast-track, already approved by the Senate, and if history repeats itself she won’t be the only member of Congress to betray her working class and labor-union supporters.

We can’t yet know what was promised to Rice, since the political deals that grease the way for unpopular legislation aren’t ordinarily announced in press releases or high-minded op-eds. The nasty facts tend to come out later, after the damage has been done. Nevertheless, we can assume that something is rotten in Rice’s district.

...I can just imagine what these “brokers” have been telling her, since the same sort of “conversations” went on during Bill Clinton’s wild and woolly campaign to round up votes for the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. Back then, the House’s Democratic leadership, under the tutelage of Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, was conning itself that NAFTA could be used to improve the environment along the Rio Grande and raise living standards and wages south of the border to a level closer to America’s.

Gephardt had set the tone of naïveté-- or cynicism, if you prefer-- when, at the first President Bush’s behest, he supported fast-track for NAFTA and smoothed its passage in 1991. At the time, the St. Louis congressman thought he could become president, so to appear more worthy of corporate campaign contributions, he “negotiated” with the elder Bush to insert labor and environment standards into future negotiations with Mexico and Canada.

Bush’s people were prepared to agree, since the negotiating would be done in secret and nothing enforceable would come of an “agreement” with Gephardt anyway. The whole point of moving production to Mexico is to take advantage of low wages and lax environmental rules.

Gephardt got nothing but lip service in exchange for his crucial vote. By the time President Clinton took over the NAFTA portfolio, opposition to the agreement within the Democratic Party had been weakened by Gephardt’s foolish gambit. But Clinton also faced right-wing Republican opposition, as well as that of Ross Perot, the billionaire independent who, when he ran for president in 1992, got 19 percent of the popular vote. Clinton had to purchase “peelable” Democratic votes to put NAFTA over the finish line.

Assisted by his chief lobbyists, Mickey Kantor, William Daley and Rahm Emmanuel, he bought members of the Florida delegation by committing the National School Lunch Program to buy more Florida tomatoes and corn; he bought the vote of Rep. Esteban Torres (D., Calif.) by creating the North American Development Bank, supposedly to fund infrastructure projects on the border; and he bought the vote of Rep. Bill Brewster (D., Okla.) by agreeing to go duck hunting with him and have their picture taken.

Like Gephardt, Kathleen Rice seems to think she’s onto something new: The Senate’s TPP legislation “outlines unprecedented requirements to address the worker-protection problems of NAFTA. It sets high labor and environmental standards, and ensures that trade sanctions can be imposed on any country that fails to meet these marks.”

I wish I knew the going rate for such nonsense.

"Such nonsense" is not appealing to Democrats. P.G. Sittenfeld is the progressive Democrat running for the Ohio Senate seat held by pro-TPP Republican Rob Portman. "The TPP is bad enough," said Sittenfeld, "but Fast Track is even worse, and I would vote against both if I were in the Senate."

In my view, giving this president-- or any future president-- a six-year blank check to negotiate trade deals that can only be voted up or down is an abdication of Congressional responsibility. I’ve got no problem whatsoever with presidents negotiating trade or other international agreements, since they obviously can’t be negotiated by 535 members of Congress. But once agreements are struck, the only real power Congress has is the power to amend. Once that is given up, presidents run the show and Congress has no power or authority at all.

Let me be crystal clear. In the Senate, I will work with anyone from either party to get the best trade deals possible for Ohio workers. Given a fair chance and a level playing field, I believe Ohioans can outwork, outproduce and outcompete anyone on the face of the planet. But free trade must also be fair trade.

One of the worst of the Republicans on this is freshman Congressman Steve Knight, who has been getting a lot of pushback from Republican extremists like himself who are disappointed he's "gone soft" since being elected. His official congressional website ran an article from the libertarian Cato Institute apologizing for the GOP position giving Obama unlimited Fast Track authority over trade.

Trade opponents characterize TPA as an executive power-grab, a legislative capitulation, and a blank check from Congress that entitles the president to negotiate trade deals in secret without any congressional input except the right to vote “yea” or “nay” on an unalterable, unamendable, completed and signed agreement. But the truth is that TPA does not cede any authority from one branch to the other, but makes exercise of that authority more practicable for both branches.

Under the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Congress is given the authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” and to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.” While the president has no specific constitutional authority over trade, Article II grants the president power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. Accordingly, the formulation, negotiation, and implementation of trade agreements require the involvement and cooperation of both branches.

TPA allows the executive branch to negotiate trade deals with foreign governments on the basis of guidance from Congress, to be approved or not, under expedited legislative procedure by a subsequent up-or-down congressional vote on legislation to implement the agreement after it has been completed. That guidance includes articulation of Congress’s trade policy objectives, specific parameters, and other conditions that it expects the executive branch to meet in order for completed trade deals to receive the fast-track treatment of guaranteed, timely, up-or-down votes in both chambers without scope for amendments or filibusters. In other words, Congress does not relinquish its authority. It reiterates its authority by setting boundaries for the president.

Touchy, touchy... but that doesn't do anything to answer the question about why Steve Knight voted to steal $700 million from Medicare to grease the skids for the TPP, pissing off seniors, Democrats and his Tea Party base. Over at The Nation, John Nichols agreed, though, that the TPP battle wasn't about Obama... but not for the same reasons Knight and Cato think so.

The fight over Trade Promotion Authority was never about Barack Obama, despite the best efforts of the White House and many in the media to portray it as such. The president's effort to obtain congressional consent to "fast track" a sweeping Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which failed Friday amid a complex flurry of House votes, fell apart because of something that runs far deeper: frustration on the part of Americans with race-to-the-bottom trade policies as defined by the North American Free Trade Agreement and extended across ensuing agreements.

...The free-trade model that has been promoted for decades by Democratic and Republican presidents, along with Wall Street interests and multinational corporations, has failed American workers and communities-- and millions of Americans who were part of the president's winning coalitions in 2008 and in 2012 recognize this.

...It wasn't that the Democrats wanted to deal Obama a defeat, as the vapid headlines suggested Friday afternoon. This wasn't the personality contest that pundits so enjoy. Many of the "no" votes came from the president's earliest and most sincere allies: House members such as Michigan's John Conyers, Minnesota's Keith Ellison, and California's Barbara Lee. The issue was trade policy, and most Democrats in the House share the view of labor, farm, environmental, and human-rights groups that believe our trade policies must be radically altered.

It was this understanding, not some antipathy toward Obama, that led 144 House Democrats to bolt on the critical vote, despite a last-minute appeal by the president to House Democratic Caucus members. Only 40 of Obama's partisan allies voted for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) component of the package. The president won the support of twice as many Republicans as Democrats on the TAA vote, which had been packaged with the fast-track legislation. A vote against either measure doomed the final package. (Speaker John Boehner has indicated that he wants to bring the TAA issue up again next week in a last-ditch effort to pull all the pieces together, but that will only happen if a lot of Democratic votes flip.)

In an essentially symbolic test on fast track Friday, which came just after the TAA defeat, only 28 Democrats sided with the 191 Republicans who voted "yes."

The Democrats who voted against the legislation did not do so to hurt the president, and the Republicans who voted for the legislation weren't trying to help the president. The Republicans cast entirely predictable votes for a trade agenda that benefits the Wall Street interests that influence both parties, but that tend to carry the most sway with the GOP.

One of the steadiest critics of the president, House Ways and Means Committee chairman Paul Ryan, worked feverishly for weeks to secure support for Trade Promotional Authority, under which Congress would have granted Obama the so-called fast-track authority to close the deal on sweeping new trade agreements such as the TPP. Ryan's enthusiastic lobbying provided essential backing for Obama's effort to get Congress to cede its oversight and amendment powers over trade deals.

But Ryan was not providing that support because of any change of heart regarding Obama. He was providing that support because he invariably aligns with Wall Street in fights over economic issues. And he had an added incentive for doing so: If fast track had been approved Friday (or if it is eventually approved), Obama would not be the only president who gets the freedom to negotiate deals with limited congressional oversight. His successor, potentially a Republican, would get the same authority.

...The president will, undoubtedly, continue to advocate for trade agreements, but he cannot succeed merely with the support of Wall Street, Paul Ryan, and ALEC. He needs to renew his coalition, in Washington and in the states. And the way to do that is not with fast-track authority, secret negotiations, and the old "free trade" model. The way to succeed is with a fair-trade model that puts workers, farmers, the environment, human rights, and democracy ahead of the corporate interests that want only a race to the bottom.

And the progressive Democrat running against Knight up in the Santa Clarita region (CA-25), Lou Vince, disagrees fundamentally with Knight's approach. "On the TPP," he responded to a question from a voter recently, "I think we can again learn a lot from recent history. NAFTA has allowed Americans to purchase trillions of dollars of goods and services from other countries and I find it unlikely that those other countries have bought an equal amount of goods and services from Americans. The TPP, in my opinion, was an agreement negotiated on behalf of large corporations by governments in an effort to divide up how the corporations were going to make money. Just based on discussion I’ve heard, it seems to me that countries without sufficient labor regulations and poor or non-existent environmental regulations would also be rewarded. We need something that protects American jobs and the middle class, but TPP sure doesn’t sound like it does that to me. Sounds like we are digging a hole in direct violation of the first rule of holes- when you are in a hole, stop digging. I oppose the TPP."

If you'd like to help Lou replace Knight, here's the page for you.

The truce between Cato and the Kochs: In a struggle between rival bands of thugs and loons, you know thugs and loons are going to win

In re. Chas Koch vs. Cato: Chas wins! Chas wins! Chas wins!

"I have every confidence that John [Allison]'s leadership will enable Cato to reach new levels of effectiveness. The alarming increase in the size and scope of government is undermining freedom, opportunity and prosperity for all. Effective action is required to limit government to its proper role."

-- Charles Koch, about the settlement that includes dumping
Cato Institute President Ed Crane, who was pissing Chas off

by Ken

We'll all been understandably preoccupied with other developments this past week, related to the winding up of the Supreme Court term, which always means the release of its most dramatic decisions. Slipped in was the resolution of the great confrontation between the forces of ignorance and confusion over the future of the right-wing "think" tank the Cato Institute. (I don't mean that one side represented ignorance and the other confusion. I meant that it was a death struggle between rival visions of ignorance and confusion -- between, as I put it in my March post on the subject ("OMG! LOL! Charles Koch tries to regain control of the 'think' tank he left behind"), rival bands of right-wing "thugs and loons."

Koch brothers, Cato Institute announce terms of settlement

By Allen McDuffee | 03:00 PM ET, 06/25/2012

The Cato Institute and billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have reached an agreement that will end their legal dispute for control of the libertarian think tank, according to a joint announcement released Monday.

At its core, the agreement dissolves the controversial stockholder arrangement in exchange for Cato President Ed Crane stepping down from his position.

The two sides have been embroiled in a public battle since March 1 when the Kochs filed a lawsuit against Cato, its CEO, and several of its directors over the distribution of controlling shares of the think tank.

A subsequent lawsuit was filed in April in response to additions Cato made to its board.

In addition, the agreement dictates that Cato will be governed by a self-perpertuating board comprised of 12 long-term members, including David Koch. Charles Koch and Ed Crane, along with Katherine Washburn, will no longer be members of the board. Their replacements will be appointed later and additional details of the arrangement are yet to be worked out.

Crane, who will retire within six months, will be replaced by former BB&T CEO John Allison.

"I have every confidence that John's leadership will enable Cato to reach new levels of effectiveness," said Charles Koch in a statement. "The alarming increase in the size and scope of government is undermining freedom, opportunity and prosperity for all. Effective action is required to limit government to its proper role."

"As this resolution shows, we never sought a hostile takeover of Cato -- only a resolution to help further Cato's mission,” said Wes Edwards, deputy general counsel, Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC.

It remains unclear why this arrangement could not have been reached sooner. According to documents obtained by The Washington Post, Crane had offered to step down in exchange for the dissolution of the shareholder agreement well before the first lawsuit was filed in March -- a deal the Kochs declined to accept.

"This is the end of an era at Cato," said Cato Chairman Bob Levy.

Nonetheless, the compromise is something that both sides say will allow the other to carry on with their work.

"For a majority of Cato's directors, the agreement confirms Cato's independence and ensures that Cato is not viewed as controlled by the Kochs," according to the release. "For Charles Koch and David Koch, the agreement helps ensure that Cato will be a principled organization that is effective in advancing a free society."

Details of settlement reports last week could not be cofirmed until Cato spoke with its staff Monday afternoon.

My take on the death struggle over the Cato Institute was: "Let's just nuke up some popcorn, sit back and relax, and enjoy the thugs and loons duking it out."

Unlike far more knowledgeable commentators who got hung up on all kinds of minutiae regarding either the legal struggle (which concerned the inheritability of Cato shares that by covenant were supposed to be required to be offered for sale back to the other shareholders) or the ins and outs of the power struggle between the people Chas Koch left behind when he turned his back on Cato (without, however, leaving its board, which also included his obedient brother David) and poured his dough into a more compliant think tank, the Mercatus Center, scandalously created as part of a public university, Virginia's George Mason

It all struck me as pathetically simple. Although the self-important libertarians at Cato, huddled under the standard of president Ed Crane, who had clearly lost Chas's confidence, style themselves as fearless independent thinkers, they seem to me just as backward and dimwitted as the tame loons at Mercatus. Chas's objection, I'm assuming, was that they weren't his backwards dimwits, and I'm assuming he doesn't like people, even earnest right-wingers, who aren't spouting his messages. And the legal wrangle over the inheritability issue gave him an opening.

I read people who have reasoned it out to the belief that the anti-Cato position was a slam dunk in court. But it would have required a court, or a series of courts, in the case of possible appeals, to say that spousal inheritance rights are totally irrelevant. Such a ruling would certainly be possible, but a slam dunk -- not a chance. I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough about the workings of our courts to feel pretty strongly that it was no such thing.

But again, Chas didn't need certainty. All he needed was that possibility that the decision could go his way, which it certainly could have. That gave him all the leverage he needed to achieve the things that really mattered to him: getting that damned Ed Crane (his onetime ally, of course) the hell out of Cato, and installing a regime that seems to pose little danger of committing the cardinal sin of pissing Chas off. For once, I think a Koch minion was speaking the truth when counsel-mouthpiece Wes Edwards mouthed, "As this resolution shows, we never sought a hostile takeover of Cato -- only a resolution to help further Cato's mission.”

As long as it's understood that the centerpiece of Cato's mission is not to piss Chas off. Oh, the Cato crowd can cluck that under the settlement they won't be "viewed as controlled by the Kochs." Yeah, right. Hey, if that helps them get through the day. Closer to the mark, I think, is Cato Chairman Bob Levy's observation: "This is the end of an era at Cato." I suppose this could be read to refer to the departure of Ed Crane, who's run Cato since, well, forever, but even if you read the statement in that limited sense, Chas still wins.

With regard to the question raised by Allen McDuffee: "why this arrangement could not have been reached sooner," when it's reported that "Crane had offered to step down in exchange for the dissolution of the shareholder agreement well before the first lawsuit was filed in March -- a deal the Kochs declined to accept": Isn't it again obvious? Details, Allen. I'm pretty sure you'll find out eventually that between then and now some details were worked out, above and beyond Chas getting Ed's head on a silver platter, that will make it easier for Chas to coexist with the new incarnation of Cato.

Chas isn't one of those billionaires who doesn't see the connection between his money and getting his way. I'm comfortable closing with the conclusion of the original portion (i.e., before the "afterthought" I added later with more on the feud between Chas and Ed Koch of my March post):

I imagine that a man like Chas, when he thinks about his wealth, focuses not so much on the money he has as on the money he doesn't have, for no good reason he can think of. Same deal with propaganda outlets. Doesn't he have enough? Perhaps not, for a man who likes to be in control, and doesn't seem to have the word "enough" in his vocabulary.

#

OMG! LOL! Charles Koch tries to regain control of the "think" tank he left behind

Updated with an "Afterthought" about the 1992
rupture between Chas K and Cato (see below)

Let's just nuke up some popcorn, sit back and relax, and enjoy the thugs and loons duking it out.

"Mr. Koch's actions in Kansas court yesterday represent an effort by him to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan agenda."

-- Cato Institute President Ed Crane, re. the Koch lawsuit
aimed at seizing control over the libertarian "think" tank

"We want to ensure that Cato stays true to its fundamental principles of individual liberty, free markets, and peace into the future, and that it not be subject to the personal preferences of individual officers or directors."

-- Charles Koch, of the Billionaire Koch Brothers

by Ken

To be fair, Jane Mayer never says in her newyorker.com blogpost, "The Kochs vs. Cato," that she's "mystified" or "stumped" by the question, just: "What’s interesting, though, is why now, all these years later, after saying that Cato’s independence from him had been for the best, Charles Koch appears to be making a very serious play to reassert his control." Even with just the bits of information we have, I don't find it all that mysterious, and in a moment I'll venture my theory.

To back up, in case you aren't caught up on the story, Charles Koch -- of the Billionaire Koch Brothers (BKBs) -- has filed suit in Kansas, which is home ground for him, and happens also to be where the "libertarian think tank," as it's always known, the Cato Institute was originally created, as the Charles Koch Foundation. The suit seeks to prevent the 25-percent holding of the late William Niskanen, onetime Cato chairman, from being transferred to his widow on the ground that the institute's rules prohibit transfer of any shares without their first being offered for sale back to the other owners. Whether the courts will uphold this bar to what seems to me the normal passing on of property from deceased-to-surviving spouse remains to be seen. What's clear is that Chas K wants Cato back.

The power struggle appears to be between Chas and Cato's president, Ed Crane, who was once Chas's most trusted political confidant -- that is, until a falling out occurred that no one seems even today to be able to explain. We'll come back to that, but first let's finish up with what's going on now.

Ed Crane was, with Chas, co-founder of the institute, and is, like Chas and the late William Niskanen, a 25-percent shareholder. The remaining 25 percent is owned by the other BKB, David Koch, who you'll note remained on the Cato board after Chas bolted (without, you'll also note, as we know now, unburdening himself of his stake in the joint). Apparently Niskanen pooled his holdings with Crane, meaning they controlled 50 percent and the Kochs controlled 50 percent. If the Niskanen share is suddenly put in play, well, there could be big changes. You don't have to be a mathematical genius to see that if Chas could get control of even the tiniest sliver of another percent, he would run the show.

I remembered that Mayer had written a fair amount about the state of affairs between Chas and Ed Crane in her landmark New Yorker piece on the BKBs, "Covert Operations," which, with all due respect and credit to other writers who've written on the subject, seems to me to be the piece that blew the veil of secrecy off the BKB power operation. As I was making my way back to that piece, I discovered that she has blogged about the new development.

As Mayer notes in her blogpost:

[T]he friction between Charles Koch and the Cato Institute isn't new -- there's a long backstory here. In fact, Charles Koch, whom many regard as the brains behind the Kochs' powerful political and industrial empires, first broke with Cato some two decades ago, while still retaining a stake in the think tank, for reasons that have never been made public.

Cato was co-founded by Edward Crane and Charles Koch, in the nineteen-seventies, with Koch's money; the lawsuit notes that the original corporate name was the Charles Koch Foundation, Inc. Crane once recounted to me, "Charles said what would it take to keep me in the libertarian movement. He was very impressed. I said, My bank account is empty. He said, How much do you need? I'd been impressed with Brookings and A.E.I., and told him it would be good to have a libertarian think tank. Charles said, I'll give it to you." Koch steered millions to the think tank. But it was not a match for the ages. On January 13, 1992, the Washington Times reported,

Word is dribbling out of the CATO Institute that Charles Koch, the oil billionaire whose bucks have helped keep CATO's thinkers in the tank, has dropped off the board of directors. The situation was announced to staffers last Tuesday by Ed Crane. He told the troops that funding would not be curtailed. Through various pipelines, Mr. Koch is said to control about 60 percent of CATO's budget. Mr. Crane did apparently conclude his briefing on a less than upbeat note, explaining that he really didn't know what Mr. Koch's resignation meant and that it could indicate some hard times ahead.

Now it's easy to confuse Cato as being an ongoing Koch enterprise. In fact, when Chas stormed out, he had another "think" tank ("non-think" would be a better term, wouldn't it? don't they just puke up their already-churned ideological guts?), the Mercatus Center, established in about as brazen a power play as I know of, at a public university, Virginia's George Mason.

Jane Mayer wrote in her original Koch piece:

In the mid-eighties, the Kochs provided millions of dollars to George Mason University, in Arlington, Virginia, to set up another think tank. Now known as the Mercatus Center, it promotes itself as "the world's premier university source for market-oriented ideas -- bridging the gap between academic ideas and real-world problems." Financial records show that the Koch family foundations have contributed more than thirty million dollars to George Mason, much of which has gone to the Mercatus Center, a nonprofit organization. "It's ground zero for deregulation policy in Washington," Rob Stein, the Democratic strategist, said. It is an unusual arrangement. "George Mason is a public university, and receives public funds," Stein noted. "Virginia is hosting an institution that the Kochs practically control."

The founder of the Mercatus Center is Richard Fink, formerly an economist. Fink heads Koch Industries' lobbying operation in Washington. In addition, he is the president of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the president of the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, a director of the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation, and a director and co-founder, with David Koch, of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

Fink, with his many titles, has become the central nervous system of the Kochtopus. He appears to have supplanted Ed Crane, the head of the Cato Institute, as the brothers' main political lieutenant. Though David remains on the board at Cato, Charles Koch has fallen out with Crane. Associates suggested to me that Crane had been insufficiently respectful of Charles's management philosophy . . .

[UPDATE: For the continuation of this quote, see the "Afterthought" below. -- Ed.]

(This is what I had in mind when I wrote a post called "It's important that everyone associated with George Mason U. suffer the stigma of the Koch Bros.' Mercatus Center.")

In her blogpost, Mayer, as suggested, is given to understand that Chas was perfectly happy to be free of those nasty Cato people. She quotes Brian Doherty, author of Radicals for Capitalism, a 2007 history of the libertarian movement, for which he interviewed Chas:

For his part, Charles Koch decided at a certain point that "my involvement [with Cato] was counterproductive. I have strong ideas, I want to see things go in certain direction [sic], and Crane has strong ideas. I concluded, why argue with Ed? Rather than try to modify his strategy, just go do my own thing and wish him well. I had to get out to let them reach their potential, and I think it worked out to their benefit."

Now, as to the answer to that mysterious question, why now? Does it have to be any more mysterious than that control of Cato is suddenly in play, or could be with the right legal ruling, and Chas is seeking control for the most basic of reasons?

Because he can.

I imagine that a man like Chas, when he thinks about his wealth, focuses not so much on the money he has as on the money he doesn't have, for no good reason he can think of. Same deal with propaganda outlets. Doesn't he have enough? Perhaps not, for a man who likes to be in control, and doesn't seem to have the word "enough" in his vocabulary.


AFTERTHOUGHT: MORE ABOUT ED CRANE
AND CHAS K'S "MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY"

"A top Cato Institute official told me that Charles 'thinks he's a genius. He's the emperor, and he's convinced he's wearing clothes.' "

-- Jane Mayer, in her original New Yorker piece, "Covert Operations"

Trying not to overdo the quoting of Jane Mayer's original piece on what she refers to so piquantly as "the Kochtopus" (really, long as the piece is, there's a temptation to quote the whole damned thing; if you haven't read it, you really should, for an understanding of the way real power is exercised in the U.S. today), I cut off a quote at a point I wasn't sure about at the time and have come to feel increasingly less sure about. It's the quote where she's speculating about the reason for the early-'90s rupture between Chas and Ed, and cites the proffered theory of a lack of respect the Cato Institute president showed toward his patron's "management philosophy." Here's how the passage continues:

Associates suggested to me that Crane had been insufficiently respectful of Charles's management philosophy, which he distilled into a book called The Science of Success, and trademarked under the name Market-Based Management, or M.B.M. In the book, Charles recommends instilling a company's corporate culture with the competitiveness of the marketplace. Koch describes M.B.M. as a "holistic system" containing "five dimensions: vision, virtue and talents, knowledge processes, decision rights and incentives." A top Cato Institute official told me that Charles "thinks he's a genius. He's the emperor, and he's convinced he's wearing clothes." Fink, by contrast, has been far more embracing of Charles's ideas. (Fink, like the Kochs, declined to be interviewed.)

Is this seemingly petty pique really enough to explain Chas's storming out of Cato? (While, let us remember, leaving brother David behind on the Cato board and also retaining his own 25-percent share.) Well, it does seem that for people who acquire as much power as Chas has acquired, an important part of the payoff is being able to squoosh the objects of your petty piques like bugs.

#

The Evil Koch Family Spends Their Money In Class War Against The Rest Of Us... And We Smile Blandly

Money can buy you a lot of friends-- and this morning's NY Times makes it clear that David Koch is a more complicated figure than a Hitler caricature. His money-- ill-gotten or not-- is very much welcome in polite circles. "Koch said that only a relatively small portion of his giving goes to politics and public policy-- most, he said, goes to cancer research, followed by cultural and educational institutions. Aside from paying for Tea Party buses to bring racist thugs and drugged-up, confused and delusional seniors to disrupt townhall meetings, the Koch Bros have also funded inherently anti-American institutions in order to mold our country to their selfish interests. No, I'm not talking about the Republican Party or the John Birch Society, both of which the Kochs have poured vast sums into, right now; I'm talking about the Cato Institute. But before you read about what Cato has been up to, please watch the video above. It's one of the most powerful pieces of film circulating on the Internet this year and it presages a country taken over by non-human entities... not by evil robots operating on their own but by corporations operating on their own. As you probably know Charles Koch is chairman of Cato's board (and rotten brother David is also a board member), a combination of their check-writing ability and Ayn Rand's mortality. If Cato stands for one thing, it is "free markets," meaning the right of concentrated wealth to lord it over everyone else regardless of societal costs. The rest is window dressing. A list of contributors to Cato is virtually a list of America's most dedicated enemies-- and none of them have Arabic names. Aside from Kochs, there are Melon Scaifes, Coors, Olins, Milbanks... basically billionaires willing to write checks to create a web of useful idiots to promote their control over society and nation. And this is above ad beyond the considerable donations they get directly from corporate entities like Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Wal-Mart, Visa, Comcast and the American Petroleum Institute.

This week when ABC News ran a segment on "buying American," Cato rose up-- on behalf of it's multinational corporate owners-- screeching about dangerous nationalism. Our friends at the Alliance for American Manufacturing sent us an interesting post about the importance of Buying American, Cato's reaction, and a hypothetical phone conversation with Dan Ikenson, the paid Cato hack pushing the Koch agenda.

ME: Hi Dan, it's Steven Capozzola at AAM. Listen, your viewpoint is just backward. You guys are the ones who've gotten us into this mess.

IKENSON: Free trade works. Our productivity is better than it's ever been. Per capita income is so much greater than it was in 1960, when we hardly imported anything. Household goods cost less than ever. People can buy whatever they want.


ME: Yes, you talk about all these low-cost goods. But Dan, when I lost my job during the recession in 2002, the only work I could find was earning minimum wage at a bookstore. I had no health insurance. It took me an hour to earn the money just to buy a stick of deodorant. I couldn't afford to buy much of anything.

IKENSON: I understand. There has been some shakeout as we've adjusted to the global economy. But on the whole, we are far better as a nation. We don't make and sell low-end retail products any more. Instead, our factories produce top-notch items like pharmaceuticals, chemicals, airplanes, and sophisticated components.  

ME: And how does that benefit me if I've lost my job and am now earning miniumum wage?

IKENSON: You're talking about economics. The fact that Americans are unemployed speaks to a mismatch of skills demanded and skills available.

ME: Actually, I was thinking about the exact industries you're talking about. Our factory workers have lost good-paying jobs. But we're also losing ground in high-tech to China every day. What about the Silicon Valley people who've been laid-off because our high-tech has disappeared, too? What about printed circuit boards and semi-conductors and wind turbines and solar panels? I thought that's where we were supposed to be heading...

IKENSON: You want to be a protectionist and start putting up walls.

ME: No, I want China and other countries to stop putting up walls. They're extremely protectionist with all their currency rigging and illegal subsidies. The U.S. is a much more open market. Aren't you bothered by how protectionist China is?

IKENSON: China represents a vast market for U.S. companies.

ME: But our trade deficit keeps going up with China. They're not buying our stuff. Instead, we're becoming more dependent on them for hi-tech, for our military equipment. That worries the heck out of me.
IKENSON: U.S. manufacturing is thriving.

ME: Dan, hang on, can you do me a quick favor? Can you look out the window?

IKENSON: What, it's sunny? What?

ME: I want you to stop looking at your textbooks for a moment and actually take a look at the shape of the country. We've been following your prescription for the past 15 years. Are you telling me that as a nation we are better off than we were then? Do you really think we have better employment, more people covered with healthcare, less debt? Have you actually looked up from your desk and walked the streets, seen who's working, who isn't?

IKENSON: I'm not going to get into an angry discussion.

ME: Okay, so you're comfortable sacrificing millions of American jobs for an ideology.

IKENSON: But other jobs are created. You're only looking at the downside, not the positives.

ME: Dan, show me the positives. Show me that the trajectory we've taken since we opened up trade with China, for example-- that it has lifted up more Americans. Show me that we've been better off under your vision.

IKENSON: Goodbye.

Editor's Note: At this point, Ikenson hangs up on the hypothetical phone call.

What isn't hypothetical is that politicians get into Congress calling themselves Democrats and then feed at the same trough sleazy operations like Cato feed at and then vote exactly the way Republicans do. A perfect example is corrupt Minnesota Blue Dog Collin Peterson who announced yesterday his intention to work with these reactionary forces to gut environmental protections and to help the Kochs achieve their #1 agenda item: permanently blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. He-- as well as Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK) and Nick Rahall (D-WV), two more corporate whores disguised in a blue t-shirts-- are co-sponsoring anti-EPA legislation with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), two of the worst energy company shills in Congress. Jim Inhofe introduced the same heinous bill in the Senate. We decided to see how much loot these characters have taken from Big Oil since 1990 to agree to poison the air we all have to breath. And-- lo and behold!-- they're among the biggest recipients of legalistic corporate bribes from this sector.

Jim Inhofe- $1,251,323
Dan Boren- $636,260
Fred Upton- $256,850
Ed Whitfield- $234,997
Nick Rahall- $131,458
Collin Peterson- $58,850

Not bad: just two-and-a-half million bucks and they have a "bipartisan" bill headed to the floor-- and to the signing pen of the weakest, most conflicted president in our lifetimes (who happens to have taken another $973,551 from this industry towards his political career).

UPDATE: Fighting Back In Wisconsin

This, of course, is a union ad, not a Democratic Party ad. You can tell because it has teeth and goes for the jugular: