There’s a rift in the American labor movement, and enterprising Republicans might be able to exploit it. Here’s Politico this week, documenting the disagreements between service-sector and labor unions as highlighted in a letter published recently by leading labor unions:
“The labor federation and many of its member unions have embraced environmentalism as a pillar of their progressive agenda, even as Building Trades unions claimed that the environmental movement often threatened the growth of well-paying union jobs.“
Though public-sector and trade unions might be aligned on some things like collective bargaining agreements, their interests could not be further apart on the question of economic development. Public employees and service-sector workers- represented by unions like the SEIU and NEA- operate in the intangible economy based on human relations and services. Construction workers and manufacturers, represented by unions like Teamsters and NABTU, work in the tangible economy of productivity and goods, or what I like to call the “Build-Stuff” economy.
Teamsters and NABTU rely on a heavily stuff-productive economy for their members’ wellbeing. SEIU and NEA do not- they would be just fine with a largely service-based system.
Normally this doesn’t create many rifts. You can have energy and manufacturing and construction alongside housecleaning and county clerking and policing. No conflict of interests there.
But when public-sector and service-sector unions line up with big green activists like Tom Steyer, whose advocacy is based on “de-carbonizing” the economy (and artificially destroying the jobs and industries that depend on carbon emissions) their former friends in the construction and manufacturing unions might have reason to pause. And billionaire green activists like Steyer increasingly dominate the Democratic Party of Jerry Brown, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. The construction unions that once solidly backed the Democrats are being pushed out into the cold, a sacrifice at the green altar of climate change prevention.
There should be a pro-productivity Republican Party out there awaiting them with open arms, ready to unite the interests of labor unions with those of construction, energy, manufacturing, and shipping industries that also make their money off of “building stuff.”
But there won’t be, because there’s decades of bad blood between the Republican Party and labor. That bad blood would complicate the already-tenuous debates labor-business cooperators usually have on issues from the minimum wage to insurance and benefits to overtime compensation. Still, it would seem that minor tweaks to the solidly pro-business agenda of the GOP- and possibly a return to the pre-1970s norm of “iron triangle” bargaining relations between business, labor, and government, as opposed to the post-1980s norm of “free-market” adversarial relations- could help the task of bringing more working-class voters into the GOP along with the unions in which they hold membership.
Republican reformers, I’m afraid, usually operate under the assumption that they know what’s best for workers- increased absolute GDP growth, tax credits, trickle-down “job creation,” and other tidbits of the Reformicon agenda embraced by many moderates in the party leadership. (To be sure, most Democratic government planners have the same disposition, from the opposite side of the spectrum.)
But in the spirit of representative government and self-determination, it would seem that it would be better to assume that workers know what is best for themselves– and that granting them political power through unionization is a better way to empower them to pursue their own interests, than making tweaks to their economic and legal environment and treating them as passive forces to be acted upon by policymakers and businesses.
So here’s a proposal. How about Republican candidates and elected officials start a dialogue with union members and businessmen about the common enemy of small business and labor- the encroaching regulatory state in Sacramento and Washington D.C., legitimized by the ecotopian whims of legislators like Nancy Pelosi and Kevin de Leon? How about we seek to forge a coalition of interested stakeholders committed to restoring America’s and California’s industrial might and productive capacities, pulling our economy out of its finance/services lull and putting it back on war footing? How about we kneecap the power of regulatory agencies and require them to repeal old rules every time they establish new ones? Why don’t we bring together all those interested in a strong productive core into the same tent, and send a message to the green “gentry” of the coasts that their de-growth and de-carbonizing schemes are unwelcome in a free country?
It’s a thought. As a candidate I’ll be experimenting with this, and it might blow up in my face. But it’s worth a shot. And in the year of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, anything is possible and worth trying.
About the Author: Senior Correspondent Luke Phillips is an International Relations major at the University of Southern California. His primary research interests include American foreign policy, geopolitics, grand strategy, political economy, and the Hamiltonian tradition in American politics. He maintains a personal blog on politics, religion and philosophy on www.abiasedperspective.wordpress.com and a weekly political newsletter at www.nationalconservativesblog.wordpress.com. He is a Campaign Assistant for the Duf Sundheim for Senate 2016 Campaign and a Research Associate at the Center for Opportunity Urbanism.
The teacher union war on charter schools ramps up with empty billionaire and accountability accusations.
Charter schools are like pesky chewing gum that the teachers unions just can’t quite get off their shoes. They have been persistent in trying to just get rid of the alternative public schools – except for the few they have managed to organize. The problem they’re having is that charters are very popular with parents and kids, especially with those who reside in the inner cities which are home to the worst traditional public schools. The latest pathetic attempt by union command-central to destroy charters emanates from the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which, as investigative reporter Eric Owens points out, is a reliably pro-union advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin.
Perhaps “reliably pro-union” is an understatement. The American Federation of Teachers gave CMD $30,000 for “member related services” in fiscal year 2015. Also, one of the biggest funders of CMD is Democracy Alliance, which boasts AFT president Randi Weingarten as a member and National Education Association executive director John Stocks as its president. The dark money group also includes old leftwing billionaire George Soros and new leftwing billionaire Tom Steyer.
In a nutshell, the report asserts that the American public “does not have ready access to key information about how their federal and state taxes are being spent to fuel the charter school industry. Peppered with terms like “lack of accountability” and “flavoring flexibility over rules,” the summary is an indicator of how off-target the sloppy and factually-challenged report really is. As reported by LaborPains.org, for example, it attacks charter-friendly Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, offering reporters a misleading story about secret meetings and plots.
Emails obtained by CMD from Gov. Ducey’s office reveal that he (and his predecessor) helped propel a secret ‘School Finance Reform Team’ … The stated goal was for everyone on the school reform team to use their ‘different contacts to help get …legislation,’ which would effectively divert more money from public schools to charter school coffers passed.
But the Arizona Republic then printed the rest of the story. After reviewing the “secret” emails themselves, they found “nothing of the kind.” CMD was forced to issue a correction admitting that their reported premise was wrong. In the Republic’s words, CMD “used a handful of innocent emails to spin a conspiracy that just wasn’t real.
Of course there is nothing new about the unions and affiliated groups savaging charters with lies, using “unaccountable” and “billionaires” as their essential buzzwords. In June, NEA’s Brian Washington wrote, “…pro-charter forces are putting more money behind efforts to elect and lobby politicians who will implement policies resulting in unaccountable charter schools that threaten the futures of our students.”
The billionaire bash-of-the-week (seasoned with a dab of “accountability”), comes from Capital and Main, a union-friendly progressive website. There, Donald Cohen, founder and executive director of In the Public Interest, writes “Billionaires Can’t Teach Our Kids” which slams Eli Broad and a few other philanthropists for initiating a plan that would double the number of charter schools in Los Angeles. He claims, “Broad and his billionaire friends have decided that instead of investing in our public schools, they’ll just create new ones with less accountability and fewer standards ….” But a little digging reveals that In the Public Interest, which partnered with the American Federation of Teachers last year to push for more charter accountability, is a project of The Partnership for Working Families. An ACORN-like group, PWF hates anything capitalist and is a card-carrying member of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, whose raison d’être is to vilify “one percenters.” Not surprisingly, several of PWF donors are rich philanthropists, including the aforementioned billionaire George Soros and other wealthy globalist/socialists.
Their billionaires don’t count, of course.
The very day CMD came out with its bogus report, reform-minded Ed Trust-West released “More Than Half of the Top California Schools for Low-Income Students Are Charter Schools.” This report highlights the top 10 highest performing schools for low-income 3rd, 8th and 11th grade students in California and finds in 3rd and 11th grade, “five of the top ten are charter schools. In 8th grade, seven of the top ten are charters.” (Education Trust-West analyzed data from schools where “at least 60 percent of the students qualify as low-income in order to determine the top 10 performers by subject matter and grade,” reported Kimberly Beltran.)
Additionally, a recent Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) report shows that across 41 regions, “urban charter schools on average achieve significantly greater student success in both math and reading, which amounts to 40 additional days of learning growth in math and 28 days of additional growth in reading.” The CREDO report is certainly in line with the results of the California Assessment of Student Progress and Performance (CAASPP) test in Los Angeles, where Mr. Broad and his “billionaire friends” are seeking to make improvements. The results, released in September, show that only one-third of LA students in traditional public schools performed up to their grade level in English and one-fourth did so in math but that the city’s charter school students did much better.
Are charter schools perfect? Hardly. Not even all are wonderful. But as Nina Rees, president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, notes in a rejoinder to the CMD report, when charters don’t do the job, they can and should be shuttered. “The public charter school bargain (has) more flexibility to innovate in exchange for accountability for higher student achievement. When public charter schools fail to meet their goals – whether for academic, financial or operational reasons – they should be closed, even if we have invested federal dollars in them. If we don’t close them, we undermine the whole concept of public charter schooling.” While there are a few exceptions, that’s the way charters schools operate.
The teachers unions and their fellow travelers would be best served if they’d stop their billionaire bashing and their tiresome accountability accusations. In fact, if traditional public schools were held to the same level of accountability as charter schools, the world will be a much better place. Why am I not holding my breath?
Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.
You seem to be very unhappy lately, but cheer up – things aren’t nearly as bad as you think!
In your recent foray into BuzzFeed, you seemed a bit verklempt (for you non-Yids, that means overwrought) and I would like to help you feel better!
Regarding Common Core, the piece reads:
‘The right’s vitriol is ideological. The losing of parents and teachers is a matter of incompetence, Weingarten said. She attributed the program’s poor reception to groups like the Gates Foundation ‘wanting to measure more than wanting to teach.’
Oh my goodness! You mention Bill Gates and “the right” in the same breath. Surely you know that Mr. Gates is hardly a part of the vast right wing conspiracy. And if you think the right is vitriolic on the subject, let me introduce you to one Karen Lewis who has cornered the market on vitriol. Just watch any one of dozens of videos where the Chicago Teachers Union leader lashes out at, well, just about everyone, regularly dumping on rich people, white people, Common Core, Arne Duncan, et al. And if you want more vitriol about Common Core, a trip to the Bad Ass Teachers Facebook page will undoubtedly sate you. You will then see that being anti-Common Core certainly isn’t just a rightwing thing. I hope this lightens your mood, Randi.
Then, of course, is the inevitable swipe at the Koch Brothers.
All these conservative governors left to their own devices initially supported the standards… What changed? The Koch brothers decided not to support the standards, ALEC didn’t support the standards, others who fund right-wing causes don’t support the standards.
Fiddlesticks! You seem to think that the right does what only the Kochs want them to do. (Seems that you have become afflicted with the Harry Reid’s Koch-o-loco Syndrome.) Actually, most folks came to their anti-Common Core position without Charles’ and David’s help. In fact, you and many others on the left greatly exaggerate the power of the Brothers. And I’m sure you simply forgot to grouse about Tom Steyer and other hypocritical, crony capitalist power-brokers on the left.
As I’m sure you know, our political contribution rules are quite arcane and are taken advantage of by both the right and the left. When teacher union watchdog Mike Antonucci was asked how much the National Education Association spends on politics, he responded, “What do you mean by ‘NEA’ and what do you mean by ‘politics?’ As an example, he says, “If NEA sends a mailer to a member calling for the election of Candidate X, or the passage of Measure Y, it is probably not a campaign expenditure. But if NEA sends the same mailer to me, it is.” He ends his piece with, “As you can see, there isn’t a sound bite reply to the headline question, ‘How Much Does NEA Spend on Politics?’ But you wouldn’t be far wrong if you simply answered, “As much as it wants to.” His article gets deep into the weeds on this issue and is very informative; I suggest you read the whole thing, Rand, it will brighten your day.
Perhaps we can best put the whole campaign finance mess into perspective by looking at actual dollar amounts. Gateway Pundit did just that and found via Open Secrets that between 1989-2014 the “‘Evil’ Koch Brothers Rank 59th in Political Donations Behind 18 Different Unions.” And this is sure to bring a smile to your face: NEA is #4 at $53,594,488 and your American Federation of Teachers is 12th at $36,713,325 (#12, Randi!) and the Kochs are way down the list in 59th place, having spent a measly $18,083,948 during that time period. (Am I hearing a big sigh of relief, Randi?!)
And homegirl, the news gets even better!! You recently joined Democracy Alliance, an organization that “takes pains to ensure that its work disbursing millions of dollars to top left-wing organizations remains secretive and free from public scrutiny.” So when it comes to “dark money,” you can out-Koch the Kochs every day of the week and thrice on Sunday! (Btw, it was a shame that someone was so careless to leave a list of new DA members lying around at that gathering last month, subsequently winding up on the internet. I can imagine you must have been very ticked off. But frankly as a 1%er who pulls in over a half a million a year, you can just put that behind you, especially since that $30,000 entry fee to join DA is really sofa cushion change for you.
And there’s even more good news! As you perhaps know the new president of this club for filthy rich, dark money-loving lefties is none other than NEA executive director John Stocks!! Isn’t that terrif!! An organization with people whose last names are Munger and Soros is being led by a union guy!!! C’mon, that should chase those dark clouds away!
Once you got off Common Core, your comments in the BuzzFeed piece took a worrisome turn, but again, I am here to help!
There’s not anything I stand for that [people on the right] like… From the fact that I’m a gay leader of a teachers union, to the fact that I’m Jewish and actually religious about that, but not in the orthodox kind of way. My partner’s the rabbi of a gay temple…and I’m the head of a labor union and I’m a public schoolteacher. So there’s just nothing about me that the Tea Party will ever like.
Randi, Randi, Randi … that’s such poppycock! In fact, here you sound just a tad meshugana (Yiddish for whacky). As a Jew who has been to many Tea Party events (I’ve spoken at several: here, here and here), I can tell you that I have never heard one disparaging word about Jews … or gays either, for that matter. Tea Partiers don’t get into religious or sexual orientation issues. Their mission is actually fairly narrow: they champion fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets – you know, the principles our country was founded on. Whom you play with behind closed doors and whether you pray on Saturday or Sunday are of absolutely of no interest to them. I sincerely hope this offers some solace to you. In fact, since you are very fond of Twitter, please follow national Tea Party leader Jenny Beth Martin (@jennybethm). You will learn a lot and be disabused of so many things that bring you unnecessary angst.
And in my never ending quest to bring that twinkle back in your eyes – you are just going to love this! – the Koch Brothers are not actually conservative, but are in fact libertarian. As such, they are in favor of gay marriage. Now I don’t expect you to send the brothers a gift basket (however, if you do, please use my wife’s company, The Lone Arranger; she’ll give you a 20% discount!), but, in any event, maybe you could lighten up on the Brother-bashing?
See, now, don’t you feel better?!! The poor Kochs can’t compete with the unions and their fellow travelers when it comes to political spending. And along with the Tea Partiers, they couldn’t care less about your religion or sexual orientation. Best of all, unlike most of us, you are a 1%er, have access to the rich and famous and of course, as a teacher union boss, you have the tools – really blunt instruments – to inflict education policy on millions of school children nationwide. Pop the champagne!!
As always, looking out for you!!
Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.
Think rich conservatives rule the world? Think again.
“To see what is in front of one’s nose,” George Orwell famously wrote, “needs a constant struggle.” In front of my nose as I write this is a copy of last Sunday’s New York Times. I have opened it to the business section. Below the fold isone of many Times articles on Thomas Piketty, the French economist and author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which argues that America has entered a second Gilded Age of vast inequality, inherited fortunes, and oligarchic politics, where the shape of public discourse and public policy is determined by a wealthy few. Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the Timessays, “follows in a tradition of works on political economy” that includes The Wealth of Nations, An Essay on the Principle of Population, Principles of Political Economy, Das Kapital, and The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. They’re not kidding.
Above the article on Piketty is another profile, headlined “Comcast’s Real Repairman.” Its subject is David Cohen, the executive vice president of the communications giant Comcast, who wants the government to approve the proposed merger between his company and Time Warner Cable. The deal would make Comcast the largest cable provider in America, with some 30 million customers.
Last year Cohen made about $14 million. He began his career as chief of staff to Ed Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania. And while he backs some Republicans, mainly Pennsylvania politicians who stand to make life easier for his Philly-based conglomerate, Cohen leans left. His political giving favors Democrats, as does the overall giving of his company. President Obama, who appears frequently on Comcast-owned networks, has golfed with Cohen’s boss. Obama has been to Cohen’s house. “I have been here so much,” he said during a 2013 visit, “the only thing I haven’t done in this house is have Seder dinner.” There is always next year.
If the business editors of the Times were aware of the irony of lamenting the political influence of great wealth on one half of their page while handling it with kid gloves on the other, they gave no sign. “Mr. Cohen says he understands the criticism that he has access most citizens do not,” says the article, before handing Cohen the microphone. “But I also don’t believe in unilateral disarmament,” he said. Two paragraphs earlier, he had said, “My priorities in political giving are Comcast priorities. I don’t kid myself. My goals are to support the interests of the company.”
There you have it: A wealthy Democratic donor admits he funds candidates to improve his bottom line. And yet I hear from the Senate floor no denunciations of his attempts to buy American democracy, no labeling of him as un-American. I have not received a piece of direct mail soliciting donations to fight David L. Cohen’s hijacking of the political process, nor do I wake up every day to investigations of the Cohen political and charitable network. Why?
My confusion only grows as I turn the pages of the paper and come to an article in the Sunday Styles section headlined “Including the Young and the Rich.” Here I learn that last month the White House held a secret meeting with “an elite group of 100 young philanthropists and heirs to billionaire family fortunes.” This “discreet, invitation-only summit” was intended, the author says, “to find common ground between the public sector and the so-called next generation philanthropists, many of whom stand to inherit billions in private wealth.” Media were not allowed, the author says in a parenthetical, but he was “invited to report on the conference as a member of the family that started the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical company.” The author’s name is Jamie Johnson, he is worth around $610 million, and as of 2011 he was, I see, one of the world’s most eligible bachelors.
“I was a little worried they were going to get a bunch of rich kids in the room and fundraise for the Democratic Party,” said one of the participants. “But they didn’t.” The quote comes from 30-year-old Liesel Pritzker Simmons, whose billionaire cousin is the secretary of Commerce, and who along with her brother earned a $560 million inheritance by suing her dad. The Obama team did not have to hit up Pritzker Simmons for cash. She and her husband, an heir to the Montgomery Ward fortune, have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats and liberal groups in recent years, including to ActBlue, the DSCC, Harry Reid’s Majority PAC, Priorities USA, Elizabeth Warren, and congressional candidate Sean Eldridge. Like Eldridge needs the money. He is married to Chris Hughes, who lucked into rooming with Mark Zuckerberg at Harvard and now is worth around $400 million.
Not every attendee at the trust-fund summit was an Obama donor. Zac Russell, “an eloquent 26-year-old” who recently joined his Russell Family Foundation, is “not an ardent supporter of the Obama administration.” Indeed, not even 30 years old, he speaks “with an air of cynicism” befitting his “scraggy Brooklyn-style facial hair” and “loosely fitting suit without a necktie.” He told Jamie Johnson, “Their head of public affairs contacted me and said, ‘Let’s talk,’ and so we’ll talk.” What they talked about was climate change and “grass-roots efforts to improve water quality in Puget Sound.” You know: real Tea Party stuff.
The world of unequal incomes that liberals self-righteously lament, the world of concentrated, inherited wealth, of politics dominated by the concerns of a few, is a world constructed by liberal methods according to liberal ideals. “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class,” Marx and Engels wrote in 1848. And there can be no denying that the ruling ideas of our age—diversity, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, gun control, free trade, unrestricted migration, sexual autonomy, feminism, environmentalism—are liberal ones.
The popular rhetoric of income inequality, the attacks on Charles and David Koch, the assertion that the system is rigged against the common man, the accusations that a vast right-wing conspiracy has despoiled the American landscape and society and polity—these are the means by which the ruling class masks its true position and justifies its continued agglomeration of power and of wealth.
The campaign against inequality and the call for higher taxes and the regulatory burdens placed on extractive industries further the self-interest of the liberals who rule our world partly because those liberals are already established in society and have already made their money, partly because like David Cohen or Tom Steyer or George Soros or Elon Musk or Warren Buffett they stand to benefit financially from their preferred outcomes, but also because there are fortunes to be made, there is status to be gained, in justifying the continued expansion of the welfare state, in designing plans for the redistribution of tax dollars, in demonizing those sections of the elite, and that minority of Americans, which dissent from the ruling ideas.
Seven of the 10 richest counties in the country voted for Barack Obama in 2012, many of them by huge margins. Six of the 10 are in the Washington, D.C., metro area, which has benefited from government employment and payment regulations, from government contracting, and from consulting, lobbying, and lawyering for clients petitioning the government. The median income of Falls Church City, Va., is $121,250 dollars. In 2012, Falls Church City voted for Obama 70 percent to 30 percent.
Democrats represent eight of the ten richest congressional districts in the country. Democrat Carolyn Maloney represents the district with the highest per capita income of $75,479. Outgoing congressman Henry Waxman represents the district with the second-highest per capita income of $61,273. The only two Republicans on the list are Rep. Leonard Lance, whose New Jersey district ranks seventh, and outgoing Rep. Frank Wolf, whose Virginia district ranks tenth. The average per capita income of Democratic House districts is $1,000 more than Republican ones.
Congressional Democrats have a higher median net worth than congressional Republicans. House Democrats have a higher median net worth ($929,000) than House Republicans ($884,000), while the median net worth of Senate Republicans ($2.9 million) is higher than that of Senate Democrats ($1.7 million). But it is not like the Senate Democrats are hurting financially. They have lost some wealthy members in recent years (Herbert Kohl, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg). Of the 10 richest members of Congress, only three are Republicans.
The top 20 entries in the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans include conservative bogeymen such as Charles and David Koch (tied at number 4) and Sheldon Adelson (number 11). But these men are overwhelmed by Democratic fundraisers such as Warren Buffett (number 2), Michael Bloomberg (number 10), Jeff Bezos (number 12), Larry Page (number 13), Sergey Brin (number 14), and George Soros (number 19), as well as by billionaires who have donated more evenly between parties, such as Bill Gates (number 1) and Larry Ellison (number 3). Members of the Walton family, who fill four of the top 10 spots, have also donated to both parties, but in recent years have leaned Republican.
That does not include the Waltons’ charitable giving, however, which includes sizable donations to the left-wing Tides Foundation and Obama aide John Podesta’s Center for American Progress. Indeed, the partisan makeup of the super-rich is less interesting, and less important, than their ideological unity. The issues that the richest Americans care most passionately about, from gay marriage to comprehensive immigration reform to gun control to drug legalization to foreign aid, are liberal issues. Only the Kochs and Adelson are famous for making defiant and public stands against the spirit of the age.
The list of the 20 most highly compensated CEOs contains many Republicans, and some conservative ones. But it also contains plenty of Democrats and liberals. Ticket-splitter Ellison, who was paid $78.4 million in 2013, tops the list. Next is Disney CEO Bob Iger, who received $34.3 million in compensation in 2013, and is a generous Democrat. Other highly paid CEOs whose giving since 2009 has favored Democrats include outgoing Ford chief Alan Mulally, Larry Merlo of CVS, Kenneth Chennault of American Express, and Paul Jacobs of Qualcomm. When you make more than $19 million a year the line separating Democrats from Republicans becomes hazy. Is Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs a movement conservative? Is GE’s Jeffrey Immelt?
Eight of the 10 largest private foundations are liberal. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest foundation with $37 billion in assets, to which Warren Buffett has pledged his trust, has delivered grants to the Tides Center and the Center for American Progress. So have the Ford Foundation ($11 billion in assets), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ($10 billion), the Hewlett Foundation ($8 billion), the MacArthur Foundation ($6 billion), and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation ($6 billion). The Kellogg Foundation ($8 billion) has donated close to $30 million to the Tides Foundation and to the Tides Center, and the Packard Foundation ($6 billion) has chipped in another $30 million to Tides affiliates, as well as founding, at a cost of $71 million, the environmentalist Energy Foundation.
Of the top 10 foundations, only number 7, the Lilly Endowment (with $7 billion in assets) leans conservative. Other notably liberal foundations in the top 100 include Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Kresge Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the Heinz Endowments, and Soros’s Open Society Institute. The notorious conservative foundations that constitute the “counter-establishment” do not even crack the top 100. The Lynne and Harry Bradley Foundation, the largest conservative foundation, has assets of $640 million. The Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2012 had assets of $277 million. Conservative foundations are out-gunned.
So, too, are conservative media. The right has talk radio, Fox News Channel, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, National Review, and a bunch of plucky websites. Liberals have the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Financial Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, BBC, the Huffington Post, Slate, the Atlantic Monthly, the New Republic, the Daily Beast, GQ, Esquire, Time, Vogue, and many, many others. Not a single prominent institution of higher education, not a single prominent institution of high culture, can be described in any way as conservative. New York magazine admits that the “vast left-wing conspiracy is on your screen.”
The campaign of Barack Obama outraised the campaign of Mitt Romney. Overall, in 2012, the “red team” slightly outspent the “blue team” by a little more than $100 million. It made no difference. Not a single one of the top “all-time” institutional donors between 1989 and 2014 tilted Republican, according to a list compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Senate Democrats arewinning the 2014 money race. Even as they denounce Supreme Court rulings that loosen restrictions on political speech, liberal billionaires pledge gifts of $100 million and $50 million to Democrats in the 2014 election, and meet anonymously and in secret to coordinate giving to the multitude of organizations that make up the professional left. So effective has been the fundraising of hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer that President Obama, having delayed the Keystone pipeline yet again, is likely to kill it.
“It’s very difficult to make a democratic system work when you have such extreme inequality,” Piketty told the Times last Sunday, “and such extreme inequality in terms of political influence and the production of knowledge and information.” In fact the mechanisms of democracy seem to be working precisely as the capitalist and petty-bourgeois liberals would like them to work: the question among Democrats these days is just how permanent their majority is likely to be.
What we are in danger of losing because of the “extreme inequality in terms of political influence and the production of knowledge and information” are the classical liberal values of negative freedom, of religious liberty, of equality before the law, of free markets. The inequality of income our bipartisan ruling class sanctimoniously condemns is the very tool it uses to shore up the inequalities of power and communication from which it benefits. Affluent, self-righteous, self-seeking, self-possessed, triumphalist, out of touch, hostile to dissent—this is what oligarchy looks like in the twenty-first century. And it is all in front of one’s nose.
About the Author: Matthew Continetti is editor in chief of the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, he was opinion editor of the Weekly Standard, where he remains a contributing editor. The author of The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine (Doubleday, 2006) and The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star (Sentinel, 2009), Continetti’s articles and reviews have appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post. This article originally appeared in the Washington Free Beacon on April 25, 2014 and appears here with permission.