
Soros, Charles Koch fund non-interventionist think tank - andybak
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/06/30/soros-and-koch-brothers-team-end-forever-war-policy/WhyENwjhG0vfo9Um6Zl0JO/story.html?event=event25
======
rchaud
Underwhelming to say the least considering the financial power of the two
funders. Washington is full of think tanks already churning out policy papers
that end up as little more than a citation on a grad student's dissertation.

America's permanent war-time footing exists because of the lobbying practices
of interest groups and horse-trading among members of the Congress and Senate.
And, although it goes without saying, the knock-on effects of the US' previous
military campaigns. As long as the influence and non-transparency of Super
PACs is not addressed, nothing will change.

Nice to see that they've both thrown in $500k each. That's only 1/1000th of
what Super PACs and dark money groups spent in the 2016 election [0]:

[0] [https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/1-4-billion-and-
cou...](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/1-4-billion-and-counting-in-
spending-by-super-pacs-dark-money-groups/)

~~~
himeexcelanta
“America's permanent war-time footing exists because of the lobbying practices
of interest groups and horse-trading among members of the Congress and Senate”

Please elaborate. Genuinely interested on your take on this.

------
beloch
A plethora of problems plaguing democratic countries (not just the U.S.) stem
from money having too much influence over politics, which was a problem for
democracy even in ancient Greece.

You might happen to agree with Soros and Koch on this particular issue, but
how about all the other times they've bought influence with money to serve
their own interests? If rich people using their money to influence the
government has been a problem in the past, perhaps it's not something we
should be celebrating now _even if_ this particular case seems less disgusting
than is typical.

I will save my applause the oligarch who puts his fortune and power to the
task of _reducing_ his own influence over government and thereby
_strengthening_ democracy.

~~~
skybrian
Wouldn't most low-profile billionaires do that by default, if they don't get
involved in politics?

------
c3534l
There was a time when American politicians derided the notion of having a
permanent military. We're now at a 1986-esque point where we have to fight our
politicians against the notion of being permanently at war.

------
sparker72678
At this point I’d be thrilled for any movement of policy in this direction, no
matter who’s behind it.

------
gaze
What could Koch materially stand to gain from this?

~~~
protomyth
It fits in with their beliefs into getting the US out of foreign
entanglements.

~~~
tribler
> Its founding donors — Soros’s Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch
> Foundation — have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its
> takeoff.

And if it works, its also pretty cost effective.

------
rurban
So now we can finally see some real power struggles at hand: The military-
industrial-banking complex against a few powerful industry figures. My tip
goes to the former.

------
neonate
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190630200023/https://www.bosto...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190630200023/https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/06/30/soros-
and-koch-brothers-team-end-forever-war-
policy/WhyENwjhG0vfo9Um6Zl0JO/story.html?event=event25)

------
ilaksh
My understanding (which is different from most worldviews) is that the long-
term military campaigns are actually a structural component of the
geopolitical order and not just "policing" or "profiteering" as they are often
portrayed.

Actually I see it as not only a multidecade effort but spanning all the way
back to the parent hegemony of Britain and continuing the tradition of empire
that goes back thousands of years.

I'm all for a new paradigm but I think you would actually be making a break
with history in general.

And then the practical side of this. The dominance of American currency and
relative wealth of America has not so far been made possible by some superior
ideology as it is often believed but rather by regular deployment of the most
high-tech, massive and deadly weaponry ever created.

You would need to get everyone to agree to the new paradigm of peace. Do we
expect China to stop building out it's navy, cyberwar, AI defense, etc.? Or
just maybe everyone agrees to not use their weapons? Because if not then what
you are actually talking about is not a new paradigm but rather letting a new
hegemony take over.

------
fmajid
It’s only surprising if you adhere to the cartoonish villain theory of the
Koch brothers. They are more intellectually consistent than given credit for
and have funded advocacy for criminal justice reform, i.e. abolishing
unnecessary incarceration, not exactly a hallmark right-wing policy.

------
protomyth
Well, since the Koch brothers are Libertarians who don't want the US in any
foreign entanglements and Soros doesn't like any of the modern wars, I don't
see what is so surprising. Billionaire activists like to set these things up.
I dearly wish we get back to something reasonable in headlines.

~~~
turk73
I know the Kochs contribute to Cato, but it's a stretch to call them
"libertarian" these days. I think they're opportunistic oligarchs. They meddle
with their money. I wish they wouldn't.

Running things in a democratic fashion would require the rich to have far less
influence than they currently do. Buying elections and policies is not
democratic.

I have never understood US interventionism. It seems to have more to do with
corporations making money than it does anything else. It's corporo-
colonialism. Ugly, ugly business where intelligence agencies go in and
destabilize countries in order to pave the way for higher levels of
intervention and then the soft, undeclared wars start with Hellfire missiles
killing off the opposition, and other targeted types of killings.

~~~
archgoon
Libertarians support individual liberty and constrained government; they don't
necessarily support democracy (though this does not necessarily imply
supporting dictatorship).

[https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-
democ...](https://reason.com/2018/11/10/libertarian-critiques-of-democracy-
cant/)

From some libertarians perspective; it's more important to constrain the power
of government than to do so in a democratic fashion. The proposed ways of
enforcing constrained government vary considerably though.

EDIT: Apparently defining terms and explaining view points does not meet the
high standards of hacker news comments. If I have misrepresented any
perspectives my apologies.

~~~
0815test
Democracy in the _absence_ of individual liberty and constrained government
simply doesn't work - it becomes corruption. While admittedly, few non-
democratic polities pursue liberal values, the ones that occasionally did
throughout history seemed to feature a similar quality of governance to modern
liberal democracies. Their main (and quite significant) problem was
instability over time, and that's what democratization mostly addresses.

------
RickJWagner
Reminds me of recent headlines that described agreements between AOC and Ted
Cruz.

Truly, if you go far enough right you end up on the left, and vice-versa.

This is a good thing.

~~~
gremlinsinc
Uh... no you don't... this isn't pacman where you come out on the other side.
Many conservatives actually agreed w/ AOC on a move to limit how much credit
cards and predatory loans could charge in interest... It's something that
helps and benefits most of society except the predatory lending companies, and
it's something not as polarized. It's easy for cross-collaborating because
there's no clause on abortion, guns, no religious intertwinings...

You're not gonna find many people right of libertarians calling for universal
healthcare because they're magically progressive now...

You're also not going to find progressives out in the leftest of the left who
are also members of the KKK or think there are 'good people on both sides'...
there will always be some overlap on smaller issues that aren't ideological.
Ending war seems like something both sides could get behind (only reason they
haven't is because of the amount of $$$ in warfare -- it's insane).

I also think it's just posturing. 500k is a tiny tiny sum compared w/ what
Soros and Koch spend in politics annually. They'd put up way more if they
thought it was gonna go anywhere, or valuable enough to do so. Personally I
don't trust either as they're both oligarch's just w/ slightly different
ideologies of the perfect society (that they are trying to bring about by
virtual of their extreme wealth).

~~~
RickJWagner
The KKK is pretty much dead today, isn't it? Democratic Senator Byrd was their
last high profile leader, except for maybe David Duke and he's been
marginalized for decades.

Antifa seems like the group most likely to wear masks and attack people. (I
see people are defending some person who spit on Eric Trump last weekend.)
Antifa beat a journalist, and again they have defenders.

So..... yes. If you go to where the hate is, left and right will be close
together there.

On the other side of the coin, I have many good friends on the left and the
right. They are all good people. I'd imagine about half a circle away from
those violent types of either political philosophy.

------
buboard
I laughed at their street cred.

------
noobermin
When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers. It's good in some sense
that two oligarchs who fund various political organizations agree on something
but I'd rather have actual democracy in the US.

~~~
ethbro
All things in balance.

The problem with strict democracy is that everyone ultimately votes to give
themselves a raise.

Truly competing oligarchs (ironic, given article) are certainly more
democratic than Russian-style oligarchy.

 _Edit:_ To the knee-jerk, I ask what the alternative is? Create a government-
adjudicated omni-system to prevent democratic meddling, without loophole and
completely impartial?

I personally think Citizens United should be repealed and caps put in place,
but let's not kid ourselves that would solve the problem.

~~~
TheDong
> The problem with strict democracy is that everyone ultimately votes to give
> themselves a raise.

The homeless deserve a raise (aka being housed). It's not a problem when a
system fights to help the average man and those that are worse off. It's a
problem when the system is only helping those that are already rich.

~~~
hollander
The strange thing is that the rich profit if the poor get more money to spend.
But that's indirect and long term, and that is a difficult concept for many.

------
m0zg
Trump has already ended that policy.

~~~
archgoon
Although the Trump administration has voiced a desire to extract themselves
from the existing military engagements in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, they
have not yet done so. (As a side note, the previous administration also
expressed a similar desire). Thus it is perhaps premature to claim that the
current administration has 'ended' the policy.

However, this misses the point that the goal of the proposed institute is to:

> ... promote an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather
> than threats, sanctions, and bombing.

Unfortunately, the current negotiation tactics being pursued against, say,
Iran, do not fall under this new style of diplomacy. I'm sure other examples
may come to mind.

~~~
chrisco255
It's weird to take tools off the table, like sanctions. It would reduce
diplomacy to begging "pretty please".

~~~
effie
"Pretty please" is actually a good default approach for a state X wanting
something from another state Y; it shows respect and builds mutual trust.
There is no guarantee that request will be fulfilled, but it can start a
dialog "we want something in return" that can result in mutual accommodation.
When the state X throws out past agreements, starts making higher demands, it
is playing very risky game.

------
soulofmischief
> They could be seen as polar opposites. Soros is an old-fashioned New Deal
> liberal. The Koch brothers are fire-breathing right-wingers who dream of
> cutting taxes and dismantling government.

As we all know, the best way to start a piece of political journalism is to
instill and propagate hyperbolic and oversimplified views.

~~~
webkike
The only part of that statement that is hyperbolic is that they literally
breathe fire

~~~
chrisco255
Except they give Soros the old-fashioned (harmless New Dealer type) moniker
and they conjure dragon imagery for the right winger. Why is it so hard for
journalists to write neutrally these days?

~~~
rsynnott
Soros basically advocates western liberalism, ie spreading the western status
quo. The Koch’s really are much more out there.

~~~
drak0n1c
The Open Society does give money to moderate and center-left groups but it has
also regularly given grants to far-left redistributionist activist groups,
Anti-Israel organizations, and Marxist protestors. Not quite the western
status quo.

[https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-
found...](https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-foundations/)

~~~
soulofmischief
Which explains my anger over this seemingly insignificant detail.

The fact is, our entire perception of people we have never met is shaped by
propaganda. We cannot even have meaningful conversations about the actions of
these people if we have to spend the most useful and engaging part of the time
someone will give attention to a conversation just explaining the rules.

------
scythe
In fairness, both George Soros and Charles Koch have been relatively pacifist
for a while now. That shouldn't be surprising: while one is a little more pro-
redistribution, they're both fundamentally capitalists, and war is bad for
business. (The major _problem_ with Koch is his support of climate
denialists.)

------
nikolay
Yeah, right. We're that stupid to believe you!

