Paul Krugman implicates all billionaires as smug, selfish, pathological and Republican
notes
James Gerard, referring to the New York Times columnist's “
Privilege, pathology and power” (Jan. 2-3).
Hence they are without empathy, out of touch, and use their money and
power to influence elections. What about George Soros, Eli Broad, David
Geffen and Tom Steyer? Are they without gobs of money, ego or the desire
to inject their own “statist” principles into elections? Have they not
sworn to spend countless millions in an effort to “re-shape” America?
Mr. Krugman would do better to write about both sides of the
billionaires’ battle.
This is how
Jonah Goldberg puts it (thanks to
Instapundit):
To listen to the Left, [those old devils, Charles and David Koch] are the closest thing we have to
real-world James Bond villains. So what is their agenda? Is it to
retreat to their orbiting harems, populated with fertile females, as
they wipe out humanity below so that they can return to repopulate the
planet? Or is to dupe the Russians and Americans into a nuclear squabble
so that the Kochs can rule the ashes?
Well, here’s [Jane] Mayer’s explanation of their dark and sinister ambitions.
“What people need to understand is the Kochs have been playing a very
long game,” [the author of
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right] told NPR’s Steve Inskeep. “And it’s not just about
elections. It started four decades ago with a plan to change how America
thinks and votes. So while some elections they win and some elections
they lose, what they’re aiming at is changing the conversation in the
country.”
Dear God, it’s worse than I thought! They want to change the
conversation! They want to persuade Americans to vote differently! The
horror, the horror.
You might be forgiven for thinking that this is pretty much exactly what
democracy is about. But no. For you see, only Hollywood, college
professors and administrators, the ACLU, People for the American Way,
the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Emily’s List, the Ford Foundation,
Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, MoveOn.org, the NAACP, the Union
of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg,
George Soros, Steven Spielberg and, of course, publications such as the
New York Times [including
Paul Krugman], The New Republic, The Nation and Mayer’s own The New
Yorker are allowed to try to change conversations and argue for people
to vote differently.
For you see, only Hollywood, college
professors and administrators, the ACLU, People for the American Way,
the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Emily’s List, the Ford Foundation,
Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, MoveOn.org, the NAACP, the Union
of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg,
George Soros, Steven Spielberg and, of course, publications such as the
New York Times, The New Republic, The Nation and Mayer’s own The New
Yorker are allowed to try to change conversations and argue for people
to vote differently.
Ah, but those voices are open and honest — and progressive! — about it,
while the Kochs are secretive, sinister denizens of the stygian
underworld of “dark money” and the “radical right.”
Except for the fact that the Kochs have been out in the open for nearly a
half-century.
… How, then, are the Kochs members of the radical Right?
• They are
pro-gay marriage.
• They favor liberal immigration policies.
• They are
passionate non-interventionists when it comes to foreign policy.
• They
are against the drug war and are spending a bundle on dismantling
so-called “mass-incarceration” policies.
• They’ve never seized a national
park at gunpoint.
They are members of the radical Right for the simple reason that they
don’t like big government and spend money to make that case.
… And that’s their great sin. Liberals are constantly talking about
how we need an “honest conversation” about race or guns or this or that.
But what they invariably mean is, they want everyone who disagrees to
shut up. (That’s why they hate Fox News, too.)
The best working definition of “right wing” today has almost nothing to
do with the ideological content of what right-wingers say or do.
A
right-winger is someone who disagrees with the liberal narrative, has
the temerity to say so, and dares to actually try to change the
conversation.
