Soros was a big supporter of Democratic or progressive causes for a while, and did chuck a helluva lot of money that way. This is '90s and '00s.
It always struck me that he wasn't so much a hardcore partisan as that he had certain policy goals and initiatives he wanted to achieve, and they were aligned with (D) or progressive goals at the time. It was overlooked that he made a ton of money doing illiberal things or that quite a few of his views disagreed with some commonly held (D) or progressive views. Our focus was narrowed: You're either for us or against us in those things which matter most to us right now, and if you're for us then other "not for us so therefore against us" things aren't noticed; if you're against us on those points, then "other not against us so for us" in other matters isn't noticed. (We all have political foveas.)
The Kochs are the same, but on the other side. I don't think they support (R) because they're (R), I think they support (R) when it meets their views and goals and not when it doesn't. Thing is, it's the same as for Soros: When a Koch foundation grant goes to set up a prison education system to help re-integrate ex-felons into society by giving them job skills and college credit, we don't notice it so it doesn't exist. When they do something involving shipping coke-production by-products overseas, that's what we talk about.
We all like simplifying things into "they're all good or all bad," of having only jedi masters on our side and only Sith lords on theirs.
= new reply since forum marked as read
