Death of David Koch Exposes Slime on Both Sides
Death of David Koch Exposes Slime on Both Sides
David Koch has died. I say this with a heavy heart, because despite Mr. Koch’s boogeyman image in the liberal media and his traitor to the GOP image from at least some so-called “Republicans,” the libertarian-leaning conservative was a giant – both in stature, in moral consistency, and in his tireless dedication to everything from political causes to charitable and artistic ones.
David Koch and his brother Charles were the quintessential capitalist monsters under every Democrat’s bed. The family did not start out super wealthy or privileged. Fred Koch – the brothers’ father – was a chemical engineer. In 1925, Fred Koch joined an MIT classmate at an engineering firm in Wichita, Kansas, which was renamed the Winkler-Koch Engineering Company. In 1927, they developed a more efficient thermal cracking process for turning crude oil into gasoline.
David Koch joined the company in 1970 as a technical services manager, and then proceeded to found the company’s office in New York City and later became president of his own division.
They didn’t build that, Barack Obama would say. Except that they did, and that means David Koch and his brother earned the vile filth hurled at them by progressives.
Worse yet, the Koch brothers’ dedication to small government principles got under the craw of many a leftist, who no doubt despised their hard work, their success, their lack of reliance on government handouts, and certainly their commitment to freedom. Harry Reid – the left’s lying, big government-worshiping bag of rancid douche once called the self-made, charitable Koch brothers who put their money where their mouths were by dedicating much of their vast resources to education, grassroots organization, the arts, and health care research “un-American.” I suppose Harry Reid’s commitment to government corruption and graft and his unrepentant lies about political opponents are much more “American,” right? Accusing m0re generous members of the political opposition of using charitable giving to manipulate the tax system is much more “American.”
The New York Times – not to be outdone in the slime department – published the following headline to commemorate David Koch’s passing.
David Koch, Billionaire Who Fueled Right-Wing Movement, Dies at 79
That’s what David Koch’s life was about to the mainstream media – political conservatism. Although even the Times couldn’t gloss over David Koch’s legacy of charitable giving, the paper quickly focused on Koch’s wealth and his part in founding what it claims to be the “far right” movement – the TEA party.
In addition to Southampton, Mr. Koch had palatial homes on Park Avenue in Manhattan, in Aspen, Colo., and in Palm Beach, Fla. He kept a yacht in the Mediterranean for summer getaways and rented it out for $500,000 a week. His friends and acquaintances included Bill and Melinda Gates, Prince Charles and Winston Churchill’s grandson Winston Spencer Churchill.
And while the leftists nationwide condemned the Charles and David Koch for their support for the “far right,” the brothers, in fact, did not support Donald Trump in his bid for the White House, and told their supporters that they did not plan to support Trump’s 2020 reelection bid.
This did not sit well with some in the GOP, who felt entitled to the Koch millions and found it unconscionable that the two billionaires would choose the independent route, focusing on issues where their money would do the most good and working with politicians regardless of party to solve some of our nation’s most pressing issues.
Spokesman James Davis said the network plans to make a “significant investment to support policy champions in Senate, House and state races, build broad-based policy coalitions, and to launch a major new initiative to fight poverty in America.”
“Some groups who claim to support conservatives forgo their commitment when they decide their business interests are more important than those of the country or Party. This is unacceptable,” the letter said, adding that the party had “been prepared for this for years” and had a stronger data and digital operation than the Koch network.
Apparently, some believe that merely claiming to be a “Republican” should be sufficient reason to receive Koch money.
Fact is David Koch did not toe the line of any political party. He was staunchly libertarian when it came to social issues and took the morally consistent stand that a limited government meant that politicians did not stick their noses in issues such as marriage and and health, and that included the issue of abortion. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, it’s hard not to see the consistency in the desire of the Koch brothers to keep big government out of the lives of regular citizens.
No, I did not agree with David Koch on every issue, but I admired the Koch brothers’ commitment to the ideals and principles that made this nation great.
David Koch supported free trade, lower taxes, and reduced regulatory burdens. He was an avid supporter of the arts, having donated $1.3 billion of his fortune to charity, including the State Theater of New York at Lincoln Center—renamed the David H. Koch Theater—New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A vast portion of his charitable giving also went to medical research, most notably to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan and to his alma mater, MIT, for the founding of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research.
David Koch felt a “moral obligation” to donate his money to deserving charitable institutions and the arts rather than “use it on buying a bigger house or a $150 million painting.”
Whether you agree with David Koch’s every view is irrelevant. The left hated him because he championed independence, small government, and freedom. Some on right felt entitled to his money merely because they happened to have an “R” behind their name. Many will remember and admire the indelible mark David Koch left on the political landscape. And still others looked in wonder at David Koch’s dedication to making the world a better place.
When I resolved to sample New York City’s high culture in my thirties on a modest salary, I went to performances of the popular-priced City Opera in its Lincoln Center home, the David Koch Theater. It gave me joy.
Years later, when I went to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore to pursue cancer treatment, the first building I saw after I parked my car was the giant David Koch Cancer Research Pavilion. It gave me hope.
RIP, David Koch. You have earned it. Rest easy, sir.
Featured image courtesy of: dbking; cropped, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license
I cannot deny that the man was a giant. Nor will I deny that he did many good things with that status.
However, he also promoted several bad things – wide open borders being among them.
That is the problem with giants, even if you happen to agree with them 100% – they tend to step on those smaller than them. Which is not a good thing.
the libertarian-leaning conservative was a giant – both in stature, in moral consistency
I disagree on the “moral consistency” bit. Not so much on the consistency, but on the morals.
Sorry, but big ‘L’ Libertarianism is not moral. That is ultimately its downfall.
But, yes, they did some good. They also did plenty of bad.
What’s “big L” libertarianism, GWB? Typically “big L” refers to the Libertarian Party. And the LP is irrelevant here (and everywhere!)
Small “l” libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a complete moral system. It concerns the proper role and limits of force and government, and nothing more. It’s not supposed to be a complete moral system. Free people are free to choose whether to do good or evil. (Some libertarians mistakenly claim libertarianism a complete moral system — they are wrong and its not hard to refute them and make them realize this.)
Trying to have a political philosophy that is a complete ethical system is one way in which Marxists, progressives, and even many conservatives go awry; they end up imposing “morality” and are destructive of freedom and true morality.
Sorry, but I disagree. Libertarianism without morals is nothing more than unbridled hedonism. And that is a path to a failed society.
It’s why “conservatism” is not libertarianism.
(I used “Big ‘L'” to separate the non-doctrinaire concept from the one you point to.)
Was it David or Charles that is married to a Bush sister? I believe that’s where the anti Trump part came from. But he was human. Did much good to make lives better. RIP. Dear, man.