On the menu today: a lot of reporting from the winter meeting of the political and philanthropic groups backed by Charles Koch; an argument for all the requested witnesses during impeachment; and an unexpected figure argues in favor of President Trump’s reelection.
‘Every Person Has Value,’ but Few People in Politics Act As If That Is True.
Indian Wells, Calif. — One of the recurring rallying cries at the winter meetings of the network of groups tied to billionaire Charles Koch is that no one should be written off as hopeless, dismissed as a waste, or left behind. Almost every speaker offers some version of this message: “Every person has value.” “Every single person has something to contribute.” “Every person has some extraordinary talent.” “Every person has potential and ability to rise.”
One of the points I try to emphasize in my coverage of these meetings is the particular philosophy that guides these exceptionally deep-pocketed donors. They’re generally right of center, and many have donated to GOP candidates, but they’re extremely enthusiastic about “social entrepreneurs” — those who create nonprofits and for-profit businesses focused on tackling society’s problems, such as addiction, poverty, insufficient educational opportunities, criminals reentering society, and so on.
Since I’ve started covering these meetings in 2017, a few publications have predicted “a pivot away” from politics and policy by the network, a characterization that Emily Seidel, chief executive officer of Americans for Prosperity, vehemently disputes. But it’s probably accurate to say that the network has concluded that backing and electing their preferred candidates is only going to get them about halfway to where they want to go.
That candidate support is likely to be somewhat unpredictable for those who see Stand Together — the new name for the assembly of Koch-affiliated groups — as a de facto extension of the GOP. Last year, Americans for Prosperity Action endorsed the reelection of Mississippi state senator Juan Barnett for his impassioned efforts to shepherd criminal-justice reform legislation to passage. Barnett is a Democrat.
Unsurprisingly, Democrats aren’t knocking down the door and seeking an endorsement from AFP. “I think it’s an area where we’ve got a lot of trust to build,” Seidel said. “In 2019, we were in 38 races, one of those was for a Democrat. And so that ratio, especially at the state level, where the hyper-partisanship hasn’t quite infiltrated and people are more willing to work together, where there’s the opportunity for both Republicans and Democrats to lead on these issues that we think are so important, I think there’s more chance we would support Democrats at the state level at this point.”
Despite a lot of rhetoric about unity, neither political party in the U.S. fully embraces that “every single person has something to contribute” philosophy. Leaders of both parties would claim they believe this, but obviously they don’t behave as if they believe this. It’s fair to wonder how many Republicans see value and potential and dignity in drug addicts, felons who have served their sentences, the homeless, the Dreamers, and those who claim to be victimized by police. And it’s very fair to doubt whether Democrats see value and potential and dignity in gun owners, rural communities, evangelical Christians or anyone who expresses an insufficiently “woke” opinion; some openly contend that Wall Street and the rich are “parasites.” The subtext of a lot of our most heated political rhetoric is in fact, “only some of us have value, and only some of us deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”
Hillary Clinton labeled a portion of Trump voters “deplorables,” Trump regularly compares his foes to dogs or other animals and has called congressional Democrats and Never Trump critics “human scum.” Figures such as Rick Wilson fire back, “if there’s a sharper critique of America’s failed education system than the breathless, mindless Trump voter, I can’t name it.” Allegedly respected political scientists attempt to clinically diagnose Trump voters as “cognitively challenged,” “driven by racism and sexism,” and incapable of being “won back by intellectual arguments.”
One of the winter meeting’s speakers was Daniel Lubetzky, the billionaire founder and executive chairman of Kind Snacks. He developed a line of Dead Sea beauty products made by Israelis and Palestinians and has been involved in various charitable and nonprofit efforts to get Israelis and Palestinians to work together against extremism and terrorism.
“For me, it’s staggeringly terrifying that I learned the tools to connect people there, I find necessary now here,” Lubetzky said. “And I’ll tell you what’s even more terrifying, we would go to Gaza and the Gaza Strip, Ramallah and Jerusalem find a way to help them find common ground, and to build a shared future. It’s harder for me to build a common ground when I talk to Democrats and Republicans! It is funny, and terrifying!”
There’s a consequence to all of this. Good people who don’t want to be demonized stay away from the political realm. At this moment in our national life, getting involved in politics is basically signing up to be treated with contempt, and if you’re unlucky enough, attracting the attention of people who want you fired, or for your business to be shut down, or to harass you online or perhaps even in person.
One of the signs on the elevators at the Koch gathering declares, “This country is full of good people who want to make a difference.” That statement is simultaneously obvious, reassuring, easily forgotten, and somewhat radical in an era of hyper-partisan polarization that contends the opposition yearns to damage the country.
I asked Stand Together network member Amy Rees Anderson what would make 2020 a successful year from her perspective, and she hoped the entire tone of the discourse around elections would improve: “One of the reasons we don’t see more women going into politics is because it’s just — they have families that get affected. It’s gotten where you’re almost safer in the mafia because they at least have rules! We don’t go after the families! It’s such a discouraging thing, because a lot of good people, who could really have an impact, they’re scared to jump in. They just don’t want their families brutalized, and the ugliness of it.”
Anderson joined the network out of an interest in promoting entrepreneurship and considered herself relatively uninterested in politics until a conversation with one of her employees vividly illustrated the unintended consequences of government policies. She had wanted to give a raise to some of her employees in a rural location, and some employees didn’t want it.
“I said, ‘what do you mean, you can’t take the raise?’” Anderson recalled. “And they said, ‘if I do, I lose all of these government benefits I have,” — benefits that were only given to those below a certain income threshold. “They said, ‘it’s too expensive to take the raise.’ It was this eye-opener, it was almost as if our system had been set up so that they would be forever held there. I saw what it did to those employees’ self-worth . . . Philanthropy is one aspect to it, but if we’re leaving things in place that strip people of their self-worth and their ability to succeed on their own, you can’t shy away from the political aspect, because one affects the other so deeply.”
The gathering is one of the most refreshing events I get to cover all year, because it’s full of people who reject the “me against you” mentality and who instead have a “me and you against the problem” one.
“I think what’s great about this group here is that everybody has their own opinion, and everybody’s okay with that,” Anderson told me. “Some are more conservative, some are less, but I think everybody has such a healthy respect for the quality of individuals that are involved here, that you respect everybody’s opinion and right to differ on certain things.” Then again, maybe it’s easier to build that collegial, respectful atmosphere when you gather more than 600 people who are all successful and wealthy enough to commit, at minimum, $100,000 to the group’s goals and affiliated organizations.
I spoke with one donor who characterized himself as more left-of-center in his politics, who joined the network because of its work in building social capital in troubled communities. He joked that some of his friends would stop speaking to him if they knew he was associating with someone such as Charles Koch. It illustrates why the organization is so eager to get reporters to start referring to it by its official name “Stand Together” — instead of “the Koch network.”
The donor, a Californian, said to me that the network is like the world’s finest sushi restaurant — the best fish, the best décor and furnishings, the best sushi chefs in the world.
“And outside, the sign says, ‘cold dead fish,’” he said with a laugh.
Alright, If We’re Going to Have Witnesses, Let’s Have All the Witnesses
John Bolton’s book is apparently full of detailed descriptions of exchanges with the president that blow up the “there was no quid pro quo” argument from the White House.
In his August 2019 discussion with Mr. Bolton, the president appeared focused on the theories Mr. Giuliani had shared with him, replying to Mr. Bolton’s question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine.
Okay, bring in John Bolton to testify. Bring in all the witnesses each side wants. If Trump’s team wants Hunter Biden to testify, bring in Hunter Biden. Do this fully and completely; don’t let anybody argue afterwards that it wasn’t a fair process because the Senate didn’t hear from this witness or that witness. Tell Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar that it’s bad luck, but they’re going to be off the campaign trial for a long while. If they really hate it, they can resign their seats in the Senate and have their states’ governors appoint replacements quickly.
ADDENDUM: An attendee of the winter meeting shared a fascinating anecdote with me. At an event in support of the Dreamers, he had met an illegal immigrant who expressed a desire that Trump be reelected. A bit surprised, this attendee asked the man why he felt that way, and the immigrant pointed out that under Obama, he was at risk of being arrested and deported as well; he figured that under this president or a different one, his risk of deportation was about the same. But under Trump, at least the man’s painting business had been thriving. Given a choice of living in fear of deportation with a merely okay economy or living in fear of deportation with a thriving economy, he preferred the latter.
Maybe they need bumper stickers: “Undocumented Immigrants for Trump.”