An Interview with Theda Skocpol

On Koch money, billionaires, and Democrats arrogance.

This interview with Theda Skocpol, the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University, was conducted and condensed by Tatti Ribeiro for franknews. Originally published 5.30.21

You write about the billionaire issue entrepreneurs. What do you mean by that? 

We all know that wealth inequality and income inequality galloped ahead in the United States since the 1970s. We now have concentrations of enormous income and wealth at the top of American society, and disparities that are, in some ways, greater than they were in the late 19th century. 

And as that has happened, a certain proportion of millionaires, billionaires, and multi-billionaires have gone beyond contributing to individual politicians and have become very politically active. The political influence that comes with contributions of big money has been with us forever, but starting in the 2000s, these associations of very wealthy people began forming on both the left and the right.

By that, I mean groups of very wealthy people began meeting, usually in very posh resorts, for several days, to talk with one another about their understanding of American society. This trend started in 2003 when Charles and David Koch decided to hold these meetings twice a year. These meetings gradually grew bigger and bigger, and now, there are about 400 or 500 millionaires and billionaires, many of whom are still actively running particular companies or industries all over the country, that come together to coordinate their resources to craft policy, mobilize constituencies, and generate ideas in a think tank. 

These ultra-free-market millionaires and billionaires wanted to shift the debate in the country and within the Republican part. They put pressure on Republican candidates to adopt big tax cuts tilted toward corporations and the wealthy, eviscerate regulations, fight against labor unions. Their most important organization in doing so was Americans for Prosperity, an organization that helps to elect very right-wing Republicans and persuade them to carry through their promises once they're in office.

And what happens on the left? 

It also happened on the left. There was an organization founded in 2004 called The Democracy Alliance that tries to bring together liberal and progressive-minded millionaires and billionaires. They too were pushing certain very progressive ideas from outside the party. 

In our research, we compare how these groups emerged, who is in them, and how they grew. It's just undeniable that the Koch network grew much bigger by 2010 and on into 2016. And, for a time, the Koch network spent more money than the Republican Party committees. That's not true anymore, but it was true. The Democracy Alliance grew, but it never got as big as the Koch network and its members never spent as much money.

Why do you think that is?

The big difference between them is that the Koch Network millionaires and billionaires pooled their money and ran it through organizations that the Koch's controlled. We call it free market Leninism, meaning very disciplined and very centralized. 

Progressives, on the other hand, had market anarchy. Their members pay dues, but, beyond that, members choose what they want to give money to. Their money goes to dozens and dozens of different liberal organizations – think tanks, environmental groups, voting rights groups, women’s groups, and groups advocating for blacks or immigrants or gay rights. 

Do you think the success of the Koch’s, and the right more broadly, has to do exclusively with how they're organized? Or does ideological and political acceptance from politicians come easier on the right?

Most people on the left would say, it's just the sheer amount of money that gives them their power. We don't agree with that. We think it's how the money is spent. The Koch network has been able to persuade Republicans over time to adopt their ideas. They do that through a combination of planting people in campaigns, supporting candidates in their election, and going to bat for politicians once they're in office.

Democrats have money, but they are scattered in the way they spend it. I mean, we shouldn't kid ourselves. There is more money on the left than there used to be. There are a lot of very wealthy progressives. It's not a lack of money. It has to do with how it's spent.

I think a lot of money has been wasted on the left because the left’s theory of politics has not been as oriented toward power. 

Money has been spent on policy advocacy — hiring experts to come up with ideal policy plans. You can have all the policy plans you want, but if you don't have people in office or with the power to carry those policies out it just is not going to work. 

The other big difference is that the Koch network, and in particular Americans for Prosperity, is federated. They have influence in the states. They have paid directors and paid staff in the states so that they can influence not only Congress but state legislatures as well. And they have been successful. They have literally taken over state legislatures across the country. Wisconsin used to be a liberal state and now its state legislature is run by Koch network-type Republicans. Those Republicans can block a Democratic governor. They can gerrymander the districts so that even though Democrats in Wisconsin often get more votes, they just can’t control what happens in policy.

How do the Koch’s persuade the Republican party to embrace their ideology? Are politicians just following the money? Or are these ideas popular?

Well, these are not popular ideas, and they never have been. 

But, a small organized group that knows what it's doing can deploy a lot of different kinds of techniques at once — generate policy papers, get activists to call in, run television ads, influence nominees in the Republican party — can do a lot to change the agenda of things that are debated and voted on in legislatures without having a majority. 

I mean, think about it. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts and he adopted what was essentially Obamacare in Massachusetts. And then he ran for president and he picked Paul Ryan, a favorite of the Koch network, and made him the candidate for vice president. 

The Koch agenda is not what many ordinary voters in the Republican party ever wanted. 

Is the ‘left’ listening? Is the ‘right’? 

The left needs to learn certain things from the right. That’s been true for quite a long time. Above all, personal contact with voters is essential. You have to invest in grassroots work year-round, not just during an election cycle. 

That's been part of the Christian right for a long time. They talk to people and begin to see who will be open to the messages they start with. They start simply by going to community events and building relationships —  building relationships comes before persuading people politically. It's a very time-intensive kind of work. Some of that has been learned by liberals and progressives We can certainly see that sort of work in what Stacey Abrams and the network she helped build did in Georgia from 2014 through 2021.

And speaking personally as a liberal Democrat, I also believe that the left can learn from the truth — and from some things right-wing organizers have done. No one should ever fear the facts.

Why are they so hesitant to see what's helpful?

Because the groups on the left are all competing to get donations. I mean, on the left they think money is everything. That's not true.

I think that became evident in some 2020 senate races. Jamie Harrison's race was a good example.

Yes, Harrison never really had a chance in South Carolina no matter how much money he raised. I also think about the enormous amounts of money that were wasted in the Kentucky race, too, where money given to a very appealing candidate was thrown down a rabbit hole. The Democratic Party was not ready to contest South Carolina or Kentucky. They could be, but it would take about a decade. You have to do on-the-ground organizing for quite a long time. 

The Lincoln Project —  and I love their ads — but, let's face it, these are people who have woken up to what has happened to the Republican party too late. This party is an authoritarian party. It's terrifying to look at it at this point.

It is interesting. Their pivot now is — we are a pro-democracy organization. No party. No candidate.

I don't want to speak disrespectfully, but the Lincoln Project strategy is more symbolically important than likely to make a real difference politically.

I mean, somebody like Liz Cheney, who is about as Koch network as you can get, is speaking up right now. That is a good thing, but it takes more than speaking up. It takes organization. It takes organization to reach people at the grassroots level. Many of the ordinary Republicans out there are supporting this frightening stuff because they have no information except what they see on the news and the right-wing media. They're often perfectly good people in some ways who really believe frightening, delusional things.

In my research, I travel places and I sit down and listen to people. It doesn’t make me feel better. It makes me feel worse because I understand just how deep messages of fear and hate have penetrated. They are not going to be countered by a few television ads.