Koch vs. Trump: A Puzzle of Leftist Demonology
Ten years ago, the Koch brothers were clearly the left’s most-hated “right-wing billionaires.” It’s not totally clear that Trump even ranked #3. Only in 2016 did Trump attain the top spot in leftist demonology. Even today, Charles Koch (brother David died in 2019) probably retains the #2 spot on the left’s list of Most Evil Billionaires. Which plausibly gives him the #3 spot on the left’s list of Most Evil Americans after Trump and Vance. And conceivably even the #3 spot on the left’s list of Most Evil Living Humans, though I guess Putin and Netanyahu now outrank him. (Correction: I blanked on Elon Musk, who now plausibly edges out even Vance on the left’s list of Most Evil Americans. Thanks to Ilya Somin for pointing out my oversight).
Last Thursday, I saw Charles Koch win the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty. Mid-ceremony, a well-camouflaged group of about fifteen leftist protestors crashed the party, waving signs like “Can’t take blood money to hell.” Which reminded me of a question I’ve long asked myself: What the hell is wrong with leftist demonology? How can Charles Koch and Donald Trump possibly be on the same list?!
But perhaps there’s a logical explanation. Let’s compare and contrast the lives and works of these two men and see what we learn.
Koch and Trump are both billionaires who have been involved in right-wing politics. So they’re both eligible for top demonic status.
Koch has funded a wide range of right-wing causes. Trump, in contrast, is actually a two-term right-wing president. By normal standards, doing is far worse than merely funding, but perhaps normal standards are wrong.
Koch and Trump’s versions of “right-wing politics” are palpably different in substance. Koch is a vocal libertarian who has long funded libertarian organizations, plus specific causes leftists abhor, especially climate change skepticism. But Koch has also supported criminal justice reform, drug legalization, and immigration liberalization (inspiring Bernie Sanders’ famous line, “Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal”). And he’s opposed corporate welfare and mass incarceration with words and money. Since politically reinventing himself in 2012, in contrast, Trump has with rare exceptions been a down-the-line populist conservative.
Koch and Trump’s versions of “right-wing politics” are palpably different in intellectual honesty. On climate change, most notably, Koch hasn’t just publicly accepted the consensus that the planet is warming. He even funded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project which, after careful research, confirmed the consensus warming estimate. Trump, in contrast, isn’t just a habitual and blatant liar. He routinely makes baldly self-contradictory statements.
To be fair, Koch’s critics accuse him of funding lies even if he personally abjures them. But most, if not all, of the items on Koch critics’ lists of top “lies” seem more like “errors” or “incomplete truths.” Critics often denounce him for supporting those who “deny or downplay” climate change. But on reflection, that’s a back-handed epistemic compliment. No one accuses Trump of “denying or downplaying” the benefits of free trade or immigration.
It’s tempting to respond: Funding any lies is unforgivable. But remember: Charles Koch has given away billions of dollars. Even if he were extremely scrupulous, it would be amazing if millions of dollars didn’t find their way into the wrong hands. And when you read critics’ lists of his most diabolical donations, they’re usually rounding errors. For example, Wikipedia mentions that in 2018, Koch gave $68,100 to AIER, the sponsor of the Great Barrington Declaration. Talk about “straining out a gnat” — they’re actually mad that two years before Covid, roughly one-millionth of Koch’s fortune came into the hands of an organization that — two years later! — argued, not that Covid was fake or vaccines cause autism, but that healthy people should be free to resume normal life. The same article mentions an even smaller 2011 donation to the climate skeptical Heartland Institute. Trump, in contrast, speaks demonstrable lies on a wide range of subjects.
Political donations aside, Charles Koch has heavily donated to many traditional philanthropies, including $25 million dollars to the United Negro College Fund. Donald Trump’s philanthropy, in sharp contrast, mostly consists in donating unprofitable land in order to get tax breaks.
You could argue that I’m over-intellectualizing the comparative demonology, that I should focus on character rather than ideas. But that just amplifies the puzzle. Whatever you think about Koch’s ideas, his persona is not just gentlemanly, but gentle. He’s not angry, much less hateful, toward anyone. At 89, he still listens attentively to other people! If Charles were part of your family, he’d be welcome at all family events.
In starkest contrast, whatever you think about Trump’s ideas, he is obviously an absolute pig of a human being. To paraphrase Tolkien’s Treebeard, “There is no curse in Elvish, Entish, or the tongues of Men” to describe how loathsome the man is. The way he talks! The way he treats people! If a family of staunch Trump supporters contained a person who acted like Trump, he wouldn’t even be allowed to come to Thanksgiving. Unless, of course, he was rich and famous enough to implicitly bribe his family to endure his presence. (If you are reading this, Donald, I am only a messenger. Repent).
I’m not a leftist, but I know plenty of leftists. I went to Berkeley and Princeton, after all. From the standpoint of leftist theology, Trump is clearly a demon. Maybe even the greatest demon in America. From the same dogmatic standpoint, however, Charles Koch is not a monstrous demon, but a flawed person. He’s done and said some notable things that leftists condemn. He’s also done and said some notable things they normally praise. You could fanatically insist, “We should demonize people for their worst views and actions,” but then why does Bernie Sanders get a pass for partially endorsing Trump’s crusade against illegal immigration? The harshest condemnation that a reasonable leftist could issue against Koch is, “He’s awful on climate, but I suppose he’s done plenty of offsetting good for the world, and I guess he seems like a decent enough human being.”
To my libertarian eyes, as you might expect, this Charles Koch is not a demon, nor even a flawed person, but a hero. Yes, I disagree with him on several issues. Sure, I think he could have spent his philanthropic dollars more effectively. But from all I’ve seen, Charles is a reasonable, well-meaning individual who’s done great good in the world. Verily, he is the Ned Flanders of the superrich: "If every billionaire were like Charles Koch, there'd be no need for heaven. We'd already be there."
I'm surprised you didn't mention Musk once. I expect he's more hated than Vance.
This isn’t hard. The Kochs helped pave the way to Trump. As far as demonology goes, he’s Lucifer’s herald.
I just learned last week that Pol Pot of all people was famously extremely kind in person. Koch doesn’t have to be personally mean to be evil.
To be clear, I’m not arguing against the existence of right wing billionaires. I’d genuinely prefer if they used their political activism to get more useful things done — for instance, if the Kochs had dedicated their efforts to abolishing zoning, I’d regard them at least as more complicated figures than mere heralds of Lucifer. But by that same token, I’d ALSO prefer that left wing billionaires do helpful things, like defunding the toxic activist ecosystem they created, and working with the right-wing billionaires on abolishing zoning.
Either way though, I consider the Kochs evil because of things they actually did or failed to do, not because of some wider demonology.