Billionaires' Cabal

Otherwise titled If At First You Don't Succeed, Fail Fail Again or Soros Reloaded, the sequel to the 2004 ballot box flop Soros Revolutions.  Last month, three billionaires conspired in San Francisco, deciding how to best influence the Democratic Party and left-wing politics.

A group of billionaire philanthropists are to donate tens of millions more dollars to develop progressive political ideas in the US in an effort to counter the conservative ascendancy.

George Soros, who made his fortune in the hedge fund industry; Herb and Marion Sandler, the California couple who own a multi-billion-dollar savings and loan business; and Peter Lewis, the chairman of an Ohio insurance company, donated more than $63m (£34m) in the 2004 election cycle to organisations seeking to defeat George W. Bush.

At a meeting in San Francisco last month, the left-leaning billionaires agreed to commit an even larger sum over a longer period to building institutions to foster progressive ideas and people.

Also taking part was Steven Bing, who is a few sheckels short of a billion but no slouch in his own right.  How much will they give to the progressive cause?

The sums involved are the subject of speculation: one person said he had heard a commitment to spend more than $100m over 15 years, another said at least $25m over five years. Several people said their understanding was that the billionaires had decided to spend more, rather than less, than they did in 2004.

One of their ideas is to bolster the Center for American Progress, a progressive left-wing think tank.  The point here is not to complain about corporate and media titans inserting their money--and hence their power--into the American political scene.  Republicans do it too, of course, and Richard Mellon Scaife is Exhibit A on the culprit list.  But the fact is that a tremendous amount of money is flowing to the more partisan and more left-wing branches of the Democratic Party.  By their choosing to send money in that direction, those funds are denied the more moderate elements such as the Democratic Leadership Committee and The New Republic sector.  With harder line leftists having that much more mad money to play with, the centrists are that much less influential.  To me, in a country that most have agreed has moved to the right, pushing a party to the left by the sheer force of a few full pocketbooks spells disaster for the party.  Influential liberals too easily dismiss the fact that the last successful Democratic presidential candidate was a card-carrying member of the DLC.  But rather than pick the proven strategy for victory, George Soros & Company went the anti-war path and it proved a dead end.  The upcoming appointment of DNC chair will be a critically important barometer of where the party is and where it wants to be.

Consider also some of the other rising progressive influences in the political landscape.  Air America received a life-saving infusion from Clear Channel Communications.  Who are the major investors in Air America and its parent, Progress Media Inc.?  Chicagoans Anita and Sheldon Drobny, but that's all we know.  With a few exceptions, Media Matters keeps its funding on the QT, but we'll know more when they actually file a Form 990.  The point of it is that the most noticeable activity from Democrats is not coming from the centrists, from the harder elements.  As for weblogs, questions of financing have not been very well addressed.  As I wrote here, it wouldn't take much financial leverage to launch an army of flying monkeys.

One other thought.  I italicized the word progressive in the post for a reason.  I'm sure progressives know who they are, but it's not quite clear to me.  In Radical Son, progressives were basically liberals, socialists and communists who were sick and tired of being labeled as such.  I don't know if this definition still applies since 9/11 fundamentally altered the political landscape.  Right now, it seems like it's mostly a moniker for anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War sentiments, with very little in the "for" column.  In a brief Google check, there is a definition from a local blogger.  Fighting Bob offers some brief, vague and generalized answers.  George Soros has his own ideas on the matter, but the article shows that it's easier to define the progressive movement for what it was than what it is.  Quite frankly, I can't find a good workable definition, and maybe that's part of the problem.

Comments

[tomsyl]

I can't help chuckling whenever someone mentions Air America. It's on the air here in Honolulu (a major market if there ever was one), and I tune in for laughs every now and then. It's very funny in a way I'm sure Al Franken never intended. And if Franken himself ever was a successful comic, he ain't anymore.

Anyone know what kind of audience figures AA's posting so we can compare it to the right wing talk show establishment?

[hilzoy]

Actually, I'm not sure at all that money is flowing to the leftward portions of the party. The CAP is not hard left at all, for instance; it's just wonky. (And, as a wonky person, I mean that in a good way.) And while it is explicitly Democratic, it does not seem to me to favor one segment of the party over another.

The FT tells us that the 'three billionaires' are talking about "“joint investment to build intellectual infrastructure”. The intention is to provide the left with organisations in Washington that can match the heft of the rightwing think-tanks such as Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. At a state level, the aim is to build what one person called a “deeper progressive bench”." Anyone interested in doing this sort of thing is not going to give to the DLC or the New Republic, neither of which is a policy shop or a think tank. If they're smart about it, they'll give to various different organizations with various different (generally left of center) slants.

You will surely disagree, but my sense is that the Democratic party is ideally positioned to develop serious issues strength right now. In a lot of areas from foreign policy to economics to science and the environment, the current administration is alienating a lot of centrist policy types. (It was interesting to me how many groups who do not normally do this sort of thing had, in the last election, bunches of their elder statesmen signing letters or taking out ads against Bush -- I blogged business school professors, retired military and foreign service people, and (I think) pediatricians, but there were lots of others.) Everyone I know who has spent his or her life thinking about and/or working on some arcane policy issue thinks that this is the worst administration ever, and this is true whether they are (normally) Democrats or Republicans. For that reason, it seems to me that lots of Republican policy wonks will change sides if the party doesn't change first, which can only help us. (I say all this just as description and observation; your mileage may vary, of course.) I'm glad to think tht we might have the funds we need to be hospitable to them :)

[Bill]

Thanks for your concern for my chosen party Charles. (mild humor snark)

I ask you this though, what is the overall point? Not trying to be snarky but I don't get what you're driving at other than bringing a bunch of information about billionaires together and speculating about the democratic party. It's just not clear to me what your over-arching point is and how it all ties together.

That aside, I think it's too early to tell where exactly the party is headed. People seem to think if Dean becomes DNC chair (increasingly likely) the party is going to move left but I disagree. Dean's a centrist, he governed as a centrist. He drew base support but it wasn't for his position on issues, it was his position on the war. He also has a habit of telling the democrats things they need to hear, which isn't a bad thing. Dunno, we'll see. It's kind of an exciting time to be a democrat, lost election aside.

[sidereal]

Progressive means 'liberal'. It just doesn't have all of the pejorative baggage that conservative ideologues have heaped on the original for 20 years.

[sidereal]

Also,

"To me, in a country that most have agreed has moved to the right, pushing a party to the left by the sheer force of a few full pocketbooks spells disaster for the party."

is there any reason you couldn't swap left/right and insert Scaife and Moon for your pocketbooks? One could argue convincingly that the rightward shift is a result of a few pocketbooks, in which case a few other pocketbooks are a reasonable recourse.

[votermom]

Progressive means anti-torture, judging from this week's conversation. :P

[baltar]

I'll vote with Bill and sidereal on this: I don't really understand why this is any different from Scaife (and others like him) and his actions with respect to the Republican party. Some rich democrats are attempting to create left-wing institutions that parallel Heritage and AEI, given those institutions success at becoming more and more mainstream and influential in the national debates on any number of issues. In short, some democrats are trying to copy republican success. If it works, it will take much time (when was Heritage founded? - it's been a couple or three decades, hasn't it?), and it might just not work (see: Air America, thus far).

It's interesting, but what's your point?

[Katherine]

and about bloody time, too.

[Iron Lungfish]

I'm glad that Republicans are taking a stand to keep money out of politics - Democratic politics, at least. Keep up the intellectual honesty, BD.

[dmbeaster]

This posts eems to be little more than an effort at trolling -- particularly by use of "cabal" to describe the meeting. By the way -- you do know the word usually refers to something allegedly secret, which this meeting obviously wasn't.

[fdl]

progessive, to me, means a commitment to social justice.

social justice, to me, includes universal health care insurance, equal education opportunities for all, environmental policy based on principles of sound science and equal access, increased bargaining power to labor, fair split in the taxation of labor and capital, and a foreign policy which recognizes that people prefer to be cajoled rather than occupied.

to start.

Francis

[SomeCallMeTim]

I think a lot of people mis-read a large faction of the anti-Bush/pro-Democrat crowd. A lot of them, in 2000 or before, would have been characterized by pretty much everyone as centrists (inc., e.g., Krugman, DeLong, Atrios, Drum, etc). It's not so much that they moved left; they stayed where they were while the country went crazy.

Also, not many people I know still read TNR as remotely a Dem organ (or for that matter, read it at all - I'd love to see subscription figures and growth charts as against, for example, Slate or the Nation (which I don't read)). I personally think that Bienart's piece was an unintended letter of resignation from the Democratic party.

[Gromit]

Charles Bird: Influential liberals too easily dismiss the fact that the last successful Democratic presidential candidate was a card-carrying member of the DLC. But rather than pick the proven strategy for victory, George Soros & Company went the anti-war path and it proved a dead end.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Substitute "lip-biting, womanizing, McDonalds gourmand" for "card-carrying member of the DLC" and you'll begin to see why 1 is an awfully small sample size for such an analysis. I think you'd have a slightly better case arguing that center-left governors of largely rural states make for successful Democratic candidates. Good thing for you the party freaked out and nominated Kerry instead of Dean.

[hilzoy]

I'm still curious as to why CB takes this article as evidence that money is flowing to, in particular, the left wing of the Democratic party.

[Katherine]

I think, and hope, Soros' money will flow to the center of the Democratic party instead of the left and right ends of it. (Think The American Prospect as opposed to The New Republic or The Nation, or Barack Obama as opposed to Ted Kennedy or Evan Bayh. And for more details, as far as foreign policy goes, read this.)

[Katherine]

one more thing:

"Influential liberals too easily dismiss the fact that the last successful Democratic presidential candidate was a card-carrying member of the DLC."

uh, so were the last two unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidates. (Gore's no longer in their membership directory, but he was a founding member and I'm 90%+ sure still a member when he ran.)

[rilkefan]

Gore was only sort of unsuccessful...

[Gromit]

He not nearly as successful as he should have been.

[Bird Dog]

I ask you this though, what is the overall point?

There were two points. One, that the liberal wing, by means of financial 900-pound gorillas, is pushing the party leftward when the country as a whole has been shifting to the right. This strikes me as a dangerous strategy. Two, that if the left is going to use the term progressive, there should be some general agreement on principles and some reasonably concise articulation on what it means.

I have no truck with big-time benefactors trying to influence party politics. The question is whether the party should choose to go in that direction or try something different.

One could argue convincingly that the rightward shift is a result of a few pocketbooks, in which case a few other pocketbooks are a reasonable recourse.

You could indeed argue that, and you could also argue that it was a conservative president (Reagan) who really got that ball rolling. Look at history. The last successful liberal candidate was Carter, 28 years ago. The most successful liberal candidate was Clinton, who embraced the DLC, co-opted some issues from Republicans and ran as a New Democrat (i.e., he wasn't going to be cornered as a liberal).

[Iron Lungfish]

One, that the liberal wing, by means of financial 900-pound gorillas, is pushing the party leftward when the country as a whole has been shifting to the right. This strikes me as a dangerous strategy.

In the 70s, the right did just the same thing: pushing its party firmly to the right when the rest of the country was moving to the left. Was it a "dangerous strategy" then? You'll forgive me if I take your counsel as disingenuous - and your grasp of your own party's history as rather weak.

[Bird Dog]

I'm glad that Republicans are taking a stand to keep money out of politics

When did I ever suggest that?

[Iron Lungfish]

Two, that if the left is going to use the term progressive, there should be some general agreement on principles and some reasonably concise articulation on what it means.

I have been asking the right to tell me what the hell "conservative" is supposed to mean for a couple years now. Does it mean half-trillion dollar deficits? Does it mean massive, impossible wars to export democracy to foreign cultures? Does it mean an ever-reaching, ever-grasping Daddy State that circumscribes proper sexual activity while doling out candy-for-everyone social programs? Does it mean placing the executive branch above the law, so the president can authorize anyone he wants to break the law? Does it mean torture?

These are not, in case you haven't been paying attention, rhetorical questions.

Democrats have run away from "liberalism" because they let Republicans smear it for thirty years. Republicans managed to do that by building the party machine that Soros et al are trying to build now - and Republicans did it on a ton of money.

[Iron Lungfish]

Nor is it at all clear that Soros is a "leftist." He has one outside-the-mainstream view (legalization of drugs), one that isn't going to be embraced by any major party no matter how much funding he gives.

Nor is it clear that the decline of the DLC has anything much to do with Soros, or anything to do with a corresponding rise of the left within the Democratic Party. The DLC has its own ineffectiveness to blame; sure, Clinton was their man, but so were Gore and Lieberman. Where'd that centrist magic go then?

The DLC isn't losing energy and pull to the left; it's losing it to centrist organizations that are much better run. The New Democrat Network wants to spend its energies on building up the party rather than purging heretics, Al From-style. Its head, Simon Rosenberg, is now jockeying with Howard Dean - another centrist - for presidency of the DNC. If you want to see where the left is in the Democratic Party, look to Dennis Kucinich and see how far he got last year.

[Bird Dog]

you'll begin to see why 1 is an awfully small sample size for such an analysis.

1976 was the last time a Democratic received a majority of the vote. Since 1980, the sample size would be 7, with the centrist being the only one who won.

I'm still curious as to why CB takes this article as evidence that money is flowing to, in particular, the left wing of the Democratic party.

I'm basing it on the linked article, taking the term progressive as meaning liberal or socialist.

Example 1: "A group of billionaire philanthropists are to donate tens of millions more dollars to develop progressive political ideas in the US in an effort to counter the conservative ascendancy."

Example 2: "At a meeting in San Francisco last month, the left-leaning billionaires agreed to commit an even larger sum over a longer period to building institutions to foster progressive ideas and people."

Example 3: "At a state level, the aim is to build what one person called a 'deeper progressive bench'."

In the 70s, the right did just the same thing: pushing its party firmly to the right when the rest of the country was moving to the left. Was it a "dangerous strategy" then?

Not as dangerous then as now. The left, with Jimmy Carter at the helm, failed in regards to inflation, the economy and the Cold War. The door was opened for Reagan and he stepped through.

[Hal]

Hmmm. Seems pretty hard to get more than generalizations when one queries about just what it is that the right believes these days. Is it the moral values of torture, death squads, extraordinary rendition? Or is it the fiscal values of staggering deficits, tax give aways to the super rich, or a plummeting dollar combined with yet another quarter of record imports?

Just speaking personally, it seems that what defines the modern right wing we see today are two things: a) Universal hatred and loathing of all things liberal. b) The idea that we have to kick some Muslim ass.

Bird's post seems nothing more than the pot observing that the kettle is also beige.

[hilzoy]

BD: as far as I know, 'progressive' isn't a term that means 'left' in the context of the Democratic party, as opposed to the context of the nation as a whole. Certainly CAP isn't particularly left, in Democratic terms. Also, Carter was, when he ran, a centrist (this was of course in the era when Nixon established the EPA and wage and price controls.) The candidate on the left in 1976 was Morris Udall, and even further to the left was Jerry Brown.

[Iron Lungfish]

Not as dangerous then as now. The left, with Jimmy Carter at the helm, failed in regards to inflation, the economy and the Cold War. The door was opened for Reagan and he stepped through.

And in the 00's, George Bush blew the surplus, created a monster deficit, sunk the dollar, and nearly cost the United States the War on Terror by disastrously crashing and burning in Iraq. The door is certainly open for someone.

If Democrats already had a GOP-style machine in place last year - the kind Soros and company want to build - we wouldn't even be having this discussion. On every relevant policy question, the last four years have been an unmitigated disaster. What part of the GWB legacy do you think will stand the test of time - or rather, aren't fodder for present and future outrage? The Medicare bill? No Child Left Behind? The Islamic Republic of Iraqi Shiistan? Our continued support of the government that shelters AQ Khan? Tell me, BD, I'm all ears.

[Phil]

One, that the liberal wing, by means of financial 900-pound gorillas, is pushing the party leftward when the country as a whole has been shifting to the right.

The country as a whole? Didn't, like half of the US voting population decidedly not shift to the right in an election that happened, like, two and half months ago? Are we rounding up now, so that "half" becomes "whole?"

[SomeCallMeTim]

Carter appointed Volker (and started deregulation, btw), Volker tamed inflation, and Reagan got the benefits. I think that's pretty much the standard understanding of the late 70's/early 80's slide, and then the expected bounce b/c of the length of the problem. I'm not aware of too many economists making the supply-side claims anymore.

[Hal]

I'd love to hear BD's response to iron lungfish.

SCMTim's point about Volker is a case in point. If - as we are so often lectured by the right - the government doesn't control the economy, then certainly the Fed does have some real control. And Volker's fiscal policy is hardly what I would label socialist or communist. And if the fed has far more control than the president, clearly Reagan had little to do with any economic impact.

Well, other than the tax give away that he had to reverse because of the trillions of dollars that were going to pile up.

Wasn't that the largest tax increase at the time? And by a Republican, no less. I think the next republican also ended up raising taxes to new highs because of fiscal realities as well.

[McDuff]

I know it may be wrong of me, but I cannot help but feel that whenever someone who wants your party to lose expresses concern about the fate of your party, you should be suspicious of their motives.

[kenB]

I know it may be wrong of me, but I cannot help but feel that whenever someone who wants your party to lose expresses concern about the fate of your party, you should be suspicious of their motives.

Unless you have some particular reason to doubt Charles' integrity that you can point to, I think you should keep that feeling to yourself, since (a) it's insulting; and (b) it's almost certainly not true. Charles is simply giving us the view from his side of the spectrum -- of course to a liberal it seems a little warped, because he's looking at the left from way the hell over on the right, but I don't see any sign that he's trying to trick us. And I don't know about Charles, but there are many Republicans who would be genuinely happy to have centrist, Lieberman-like Dem candidates as real alternatives.

[kenB]

he's looking at the left from way the hell over on the right,

Hmm, maybe I should clarify that -- I didn't mean to suggest that CB is far-right, just that in his position in what I assume is the mainstream right, he's pretty far away from the left and doesn't see its gradations as well.

[Bird Dog]

What part of the GWB legacy do you think will stand the test of time - or rather, aren't fodder for present and future outrage? The Medicare bill? No Child Left Behind? The Islamic Republic of Iraqi Shiistan? Our continued support of the government that shelters AQ Khan?

If you want me to say that Bush governed as a conservative, I won't, because he didn't. Only in the last budget or two did he attempt fiscal restraint on spending. Bush's legacy will be taking down al Qaeda and, so far, liberating 50 million Muslims from tyranny. But if Iraq becomes a theocracy, I will call our operation there a failure. As for our supporting Pakistan, the alternative is what? Not supporting Musharraf? In a country full of Muslims who think bin Laden's a swell guy?

[Bird Dog]

Carter appointed Volker (and started deregulation, btw), Volker tamed inflation, and Reagan got the benefits.

Out of Carter's few good decisions, one was appointing Volker, but Reagan didn't get the benefits right away since we were in a recession in 1981-1982. Everyone knows that presidents get slammed for poor economies and credited for good ones. But Carter offered no real leadership and no real solutions, and no real strength in the Cold War and fecklessness with Iran. The result was stagflation, malaise, a 70% top marginal tax rate and a windfall profits tax.

[Jesurgislac]

BD: Bush's legacy will be taking down al Qaeda

If he ever manages to do it, that is.

and, so far, liberating 50 million Muslims from tyranny

Where? You will not, of course, be referring to Afghanistan, where most of the population were returned to the tyranny of the warlords, nor to Iraq, where it's premature to claim that the population have been liberated from anything.

As for our supporting Pakistan, the alternative is what?

The point is not that Bush supports Pakistan: the point is that Bush supports military dictatorship in Pakistan. The alternative would be supporting democracy. Some people think that's a good idea. Not Bush, obviously.

[Bird Dog]

And I don't know about Charles, but there are many Republicans who would be genuinely happy to have centrist, Lieberman-like Dem candidates as real alternatives.

Bingo.

[Factory]

The problem with someone on one side of politics giving advice to the other is that they generally do not have an understanding of why ppl vote for the other side.
So they tend to advocate positions that the other side just don't go for.

[SomeCallMeTim]

1. Stagflation dates to Nixon's presidency, so you can blame Carter for not fixing it (though that was the point of Volker), but not for causing it (which I'm not sure anyone has a compelling argument about).

2. "[T]here are many Republicans who would be genuinely happy to have centrist, Lieberman-like Dem candidates as real alternatives."

My only problem is with the last two words. Of course you want Lieberman; if he came out against abortion rights and in favor of Intelligent Design, you'd have your std. Republican. Personally, I want the Conn. Dem Party to take him down in the primaries (apparently there is a very good candidate who is... state AG?), if only for party discipline.

Jomentum, my ass.