The Koch Brothers and the Rise of Mainstream Radical Conservatism
By Marc Adler
I remember when I started following politics. During my junior year in college I conducted a research project about climate change with the intent to find out conclusively whether it's real or not. In those days I naively assumed there is a valid argument both for and against the theory. In fact, the general conviction that most issues are too complex and subjective to reach definitive conclusions about had previously impelled me to avoid following politics altogether.
Then I read Climate of Extremes, Global Warming Science they don't want you to know, by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling JR. After earnestly perusing roughly half the book, I asked my science teacher to respond to the seemingly unanswerable objections I had encountered. My professor took a look at the book and said, coolly, "these come out every couple of months... I would have preferred to let you discover this on your own, but because you have a deadline I have to tell you this book was put together by the Cato Institute, which is propaganda, like FOX News." I had never heard of the Cato Institute and knew nothing about the dimensions of deceit in the political realm.
Later that day I fact-checked Climate of Extremes and was horrified. Nearly every major point the authors make is a gross distortion. (For details check out my essay called Climate Change: Honest Skepticism versus Disinformation, a Shakespearean Analysis.)
By the time my research project ended, it became clear to me that some political issues are black and white, and it is therefore not vain to investigate matters, since objective truth can be obtained. In the case of climate change, the earth is unequivocally warming because of anthropogenic activity, and the only reason many people remain skeptical (50% of Americans, according to a recent Gallup poll) is because of disinformation.
But why, I wondered, why would the Cato Institute (among many other media outlets) pay people to lie about something so important?
After reading Jane Mayer's landmark New Yorker expose' about the Koch brothers, I now have my answer. According to Mayer, "in 1977, the Kochs provided the funds to launch the nation's first libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute." The think tank functions as one of many Koch funded outlets that routinely fabricate information to discredit the science behind global warming.
Not surprisingly, a large chunk of the $35 billion Koch empire, which is third behind those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, consists of "oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota," totaling "some four thousand miles of pipeline." In addition, the Koch brothers outspent ExxonMobil on fighting climate change legislation between 2005 and 2008. According to Charles Lewis, who founded a nonpartisan watchdog agency called the Center for Public Integrity, the Kochs are "the Standard Oil of our times."
But they are motivated just as much by philosophy as they are by money. True, greed has no limits, and it is possible the Kochs are evil enough to imperil civilization solely for the sake of revenue. But in the case of climate change the stakes are higher than with other Koch priorities, such as changing the tax code or dismantling government agencies, all of which are dangerous enough. With global warming we are dealing with the likely destruction of society. It is fair to suppose, therefore, that their fanatical campaign stems from a broader political outlook.
The Koch brothers, who essentially and surreptitiously created and fund the Tea Party movement through front groups such as Americans for Prosperity along with many other radical organizations, are anarchists. Simply put. As Mayer reports, during the 1980 presidential campaign they strongly backed Ed Clark, a libertarian who, amazingly, ran to the right of Ronald Reagan and pushed for the abolition of: the FBI, CIA, SEC, Department of Energy, Social Security, minimum wage laws, gun control and income taxes.
It is no surprise, therefore, that they perceive climate change legislation as an encroachment on their rights.
The Kochs are dangerous radicals, and the power they wield is frightening. One cannot quarrel rationally with someone who essentially calls for the abolition of government. Previously, those with such an attitude were confined to the fringes of the political spectrum. In 1980 Ed Clark's libertarian ticket garnered only 1% of the vote. But ironically, Reagan's victory has ultimately been a great boon to the anarchist cause. The misleading short term stability brought about by his presidency popularized and seemingly justified the illusion that "government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem." Sure Reagan's radical agenda ushered in an era of pervasive anti-government sentiment and devastating deregulation that almost destroyed the system in 2008. (For details check out my analysis called Why Entropy Must Guide Free Market Policy). But by comparison his policies were modest.
Now, however, we've witnessed the Bush era, which took Reagan's budget busting fiscal fecklessness to its logical extreme conclusion and laid the ground for what Alan Greenspan has described as the greatest financial crisis he's ever seen or heard of. It ought to be clear to all that unfettered capitalism is unsustainable. Many assumed and hoped that Obama would easily recapture the country's confidence and belief in the necessity of government.
Yet ironically, the right's reaction has been to turn even more radical than ever before. The unrivalled influence of the Koch brothers parallels the unprecedented nature of contemporary conservative extremism, which has become the mainstream. Whereas in 1980 only 1% of voters favored the idea of dismantling basic government agencies, today most tea party rallies feature strident calls for doing away with the Federal Reserve, the SEC, minimum wage, gun control and taxes. And this in the aftermath of the Fed's single-handedly saving us from a depression by boldly issuing bailouts to banks that, unbeknown to most, earned the taxpayers billions of dollars on dividends and interest! (http://www.financialstability.gov/latest/pr_06112010.html)
Considering how ripe the context should theoretically be for the decisive overthrow of radical conservatism, it can be no coincidence that such wide-spread ignorance and foolishness has taken root lock in step with the rise of disinformation-based mainstream media, which has now added the internet to an arsenal that already featured FOX News and talk radio. The Kochs have certainly been spending millions (and probably billions) to misinform the public for decades, but their recent success takes advantage of modern technology by infesting media outlets with carefully crafted lies designed to look like truth.
Just as the tea party movement can convincingly cast itself as a grassroots cause to the credulous, the book Climate of Extremes appears persuasive to the unsuspecting. Tea party activists have used the web to schedule protests and build an endless army of blogs that portray the movement as a product of the common man. Similarly, Climate of Extremes was written by actual climate scientists. One has to dig deep, therefore, to discover that the Tea Party never would have gotten off the ground without the sinister and surreptitious succor of the Koch brothers, just as one must actively fact-check Climate of Extremes to uncover its falsehoods.
The days when I used to avoid politics because of misguided relativity and naivet� seem like ages ago. Climate of Extremes may have been my wake-up call, but Mayer's article about the billionaire brothers confirms the need to combat disinformation-based-extremism. It is a subtle poison, and if we don't train ourselves to think critically and expose frauds for what they are, the Republicans (and, perhaps, the radicals on the left) will likely recapture power and erode the republic.
For more such articles check out my blog: [http://scholarlywritingreviewed.com/]
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Marc_Adler
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Koch-Brothers-and-the-Rise-of-Mainstream-Radical-Conservatism&id=4980460
