When it becomes necessary to dissolve the ties that bind one people to another, wrote Thomas Jefferson, “a decent respect to the opinion of mankind” requires an explanation. His explanation was the Declaration of Independence. Sometimes events, however, compel solidarity rather than separation, among individuals as among nations. Such is the case with the recent New Yorker exposé (Jane Mayer, August 30) of the business and political activities of billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch.
Mayer paints a sinister picture of the Kochs’ considerable political and charitable involvement. After finishing the lengthy article, one is left with the image of the “Kochtopus”—a term given by detractors to Koch and the organizations it funds— that consists of back room dealings and an unsavory nexus of greed, influence and self-interest. The author implies that their actions pervert the democratic process and stifle freedom of speech. While others are better situated to address the truth of these characterizations on the macro-level, I can speak to how they differ from my personal experience.
When I graduated college in 2007 the economy was beginning to slip into what we now call the great recession. I was nervous about finding a job. Though I had not heard of the Koch Foundation, a professor suggested I apply to a yearlong paid fellowship program it runs. When I was accepted, I jumped at the opportunity; hailing from a working class family in small town New Hampshire, a job at a think-tank in Washington, DC was something I did not want to turn down.
Koch was an opportunity indeed. My mind was opened to new writers and thinkers, I made lasting friendships with an ideologically eclectic group of people, and I experienced a world in DC that only a year before I barely knew existed. My time with Koch served as the springboard for a project with another organization that allowed me to visit and conduct research in 49 states (one day, Alaska). I have not been in a more intellectually stimulating environment before or since. (I now live and work in New Hampshire, and am no longer connected to Koch in any way).
Charles and David Koch clearly have a strong point of view. I agree with them on some issues and disagree on others. But the accusation that they are trying to disguise what they believe in—greater economic freedom—or hide the fact that they support like-minded organizations, strikes me as strange. As David Koch recently responded, “If what I and my brother believe in, and advocate for, is secret, it’s the worst covert operation in history.” I do not presume to have knowledge of everything Koch supports, but when I think of Koch I think of opportunities to engage in the free exchange of ideas, not clandestine operations to clamp down on that exchange.
Mayer is also concerned about the size and scope of the Koch brothers’ involvement in public policy. To some, Koch is a symbol of the concentration of economic power, and to some degree political power, that is characteristic of our time. This trend may be worthy of concern. Without question, large companies like Koch Industries should be scrutinized and their political involvement should be transparent to guard against political manipulation.
But again, my experience doesn’t jive with the narrative put forth by Koch’s detractors. A common theme during lectures and discussions was the moral superiority of creating real value in society, rather than siphoning money away from other businesses and taxpayers by political means. Transparency, yes. Politics for personal gain, no. A productive discussion of political influence requires a better understanding of specifics than recent reporting demonstrates.
Whatever her underlying fears, the script Meyer pens about Koch is unjust. The tens of thousands of jobs, the value of its products, the hundreds of millions of dollars to myriad non-profits and charities, tell a different story. At a time when it seems a hard commodity to come by, they tell the story of opportunity. That is the Koch story I know.
