[subego]

Can someone tell me how the Koch brothers are any different than George Soros?

I ask because the press made Soros out to be a hero while the Koch brothers have been vilified.

Here's a long-ass article on the Koch brothers from The New Yorker. Made my eyes glaze over frankly.

[SpaceMonkey]

The general distinction seems to be: Soros is very public about his philanthropic endeavors. The Kochs operate behind the scenes. There is nothing about that which makes the Kochs' inherently nefarious, but I can understand why people instinctively distrust the motives of wealthy people who operate in semi-secrecy (and I think most wealthy people understand this, too, which is why you get people like Soros and Gates).

[subego]

My two off-the-cuff responses to this are:

1) This might be a chicken and egg problem, but considering how the press seems to be gunning for them, why would they go to the press to advertise their activities? I'm assuming that's mainly what you mean when you said "public" (those aren't scare-quotes, just quote-quotes).

2) I think you make a good point about what could be bothering people, but looking at this rationally, what motives would they be hiding? Or am I not understanding you?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

My two off-the-cuff responses to this are:

1) This might be a chicken and egg problem, but considering how the press seems to be gunning for them, why would they go to the press to advertise their activities? I'm assuming that's mainly what you mean when you said "public" (those aren't scare-quotes, just quote-quotes).

2) I think you make a good point about what could be bothering people, but looking at this rationally, what motives would they be hiding? Or am I not understanding you?

I don't mean using the press specifically. I mean crafting a narrative about their philanthropy and institutionalizing it in a way that broadens its appeal. Explaining what they are motivated by. Explaining what their philanthropy accomplishes in pursuit of that mission. Certainly one can legitimately say, "I don't care about that, my giving is private," etc., but in terms of your question that's the best answer I can give. Gates and Soros, and other superrich like Ted Turner, have done this largely through very large, public, and active private foundations. Even Soros runs into problems here, though, because he has a ridiculous number of different charitable instruments all going to different causes in different countries, so you get his image as a shadowy string-puller as well.

Obviously the more political your giving, the more politically-motivated flak you will get. Soros gets criticized by the right, the Kochs are criticized by the left.

[subego]

Isn't the narrative one crafts here mainly, if not purely relevant in terms of their political contributions?

If your philanthropy is essentially apolitical, no one will bother you, narrative or not. I'd think a lot of people would look upon a lack of narrative as humble, and therefore virtuous.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

Isn't the narrative one crafts here mainly, if not purely relevant in terms of their political contributions?

Sure. But my impression is that the Kochs give mainly to domestic political causes, whereas Soros, in addition to his large involvement in the Democratic Party, also had a persuasive narrative about developing freedom and democracy in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

If your philanthropy is essentially apolitical, no one will bother you, narrative or not. I'd think a lot of people would look upon a lack of narrative as humble, and therefore virtuous.

I think that is true to an extent, but I think attitudes on that are generally changing. In the past a very wealthy person would give to a church, or dedicate a new wing at a local hospital, or create a large endowment at his/her alma mater, and the public generally did not think very much about it. I think people are generally more skeptical today about the "value" of those kinds of investments to society, and, parallel to that, you have a lot of "new wealth" who are influenced by people like Gates and the professional environments they come out of (generally technology & internet, financial services, etc.) who are skeptical about the value of charitable endeavors that are disconnected from something akin to a "business plan."

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Sure. But my impression is that the Kochs give mainly to domestic political causes, whereas Soros, in addition to his large involvement in the Democratic Party, also had a persuasive narrative about developing freedom and democracy in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

I'm pretty sure their apolitical philanthropic pursuits outweigh their political ones by at least an order of magnitude.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Sure. But my impression is that the Kochs give mainly to domestic political causes, whereas Soros, in addition to his large involvement in the Democratic Party, also had a persuasive narrative about developing freedom and democracy in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Evil survivor of oppression and market-cornerer FTW.