<\/p>\n
Weeks ago I was called by Jane Some time after she concluded her I waited for the article to come I also Googled around to find if Mayer’s account of the Koch 1. 2. 3. 4. <\/p>\n Empathy<\/b><\/p>\n I recently speculated that a key David Koch has given $125 million My point is not to criticize Koch’s Mayer’s article gives a troubling Big Government vs. Limited Government<\/b><\/p>\n
\nMayer, a writer for The New Yorker<\/i>
\nasking me questions about the Koch (pronounced ‘Coke’) brothers Charles and
\nDavid. <\/span>She was doing an
\ninvestigative piece on their political influence, had seen my Beliefnet piece
\non Charles Koch<\/a>, and wanted to ask me more questions about what I knew. <\/span>It was an interesting exercise trying
\nto remember events from my teens and early 20s, and I often had to emphasize
\nthat I no longer remembered events with a great deal of certainty. <\/span><\/p>\n
\ninterview, a fact checker for the magazine called me to make sure everything
\nshe had written was accurate.<\/p>\n
\nout<\/a> with a mix of ego and curiosity.
\n<\/span>In particular, I wanted to see if she treated her subject fairly. <\/span>My own personal memories of Charles
\nKoch are friendly ones, though it seemed to me he and I had grown farther apart
\nin different directions from a common starting point (largely due to his
\ninfluence, at the time <\/span>for the
\ngood) in the early 60s. <\/span>To the
\nbest of my knowledge I think she did.
\n<\/span>Certainly the small changes I would make in her descriptions of what I
\ntold her are tiny matters of nuance.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nthere were any reactions to the New Yorker piece, and found one by Mark
\nHemingway<\/a>, <\/b> <\/b>a conservative who lambasted her article
\nas an unfair smear job. I think Hemingway is completely wrong. <\/span>Hemingway was misleading at best in how
\nhe characterized people I knew about whom Mayer’s article quoted, such as
\nconservative <\/span>Bruce Bartlet<\/a>t. <\/span>He also objected to Mayer’s easy
\nreliance on people associated with George Soros for one relatively minor
\npoint. <\/span>I have no position on the
\nopenness of Soros’ giving, but he has always been far more in the public eye
\nthan the Kochs. <\/span>More damningly,
\nHemingway addressed absolutely no substantive points – but that kind of
\nomission has become a staple of what passes for modern ‘conservatism.’ Far from
\nbeing a reasoned objection by a careful journalist, his piece impressed me as a
\nvery selectively edited and misleading attack on Mayer. <\/span>It’s ultimate impact was to convince me
\nMayer was probably correct on issues about which I knew little. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nbrothers, an account where I play a rather small background part, raises four
\nissues that I have often discussed on this blog, only one of which is narrowly
\npolitical. <\/span>They are <\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Empathy and Political Positions<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Big Government vs. Limited Government<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>How Theory can Blind Us<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>How Power Corrupts and Transforms the Power Seeker<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\ndifference between normal people who are conservative compared to normal people
\nwho are liberal is the ease with which they can empathize with others. Liberals
\nfall closer to empathizing with “humanity,” conservatives to empathizing with
\n“my friend George.” <\/span>This is not translatable
\ninto a simple good\/bad dichotomy because there are strengths and weaknesses in
\nboth orientations. <\/span>The closer we
\nare to someone the more we know about their situation, and so sticking to
\nhelping the concrete “my friend George” over the abstract “humanity” is often
\nwise. <\/span>But many issues require next
\nto no concrete knowledge to know there is a need, such as for small pox
\nvaccinations in Africa or opposing arbitrary detention everywhere. <\/span>Significantly, the UN with its liberal
\nsupporters, may well eradicate smallpox, history’s greatest killer, and Amnesty
\nInternational has far more liberal than conservative members, as does the ACLU
\nwith its defense of American’s liberties.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nto M.I.T. for cancer research, over $40 million to the Sloan Kettering Cancer
\nCenter, $15 million to New York Presbyterian Hospital, $20 million to Johns
\nHopkins, and $25 million to Houston’s M. D. Anderson Center, all in support of
\ncancer research, particularly for prostate cancer. <\/span>This is wonderfully generous. <\/span>Koch became interested in this kind of philanthropy after he
\nwas discovered to himself have prostate cancer, and was operated on. <\/span>Koch had personal experience with the
\ndisease and the fear and suffering it invokes, and so has acted generously to
\nassist others. <\/span>But the article
\ngave no examples of more abstracted kinds of charitable giving. <\/span><\/p>\n
\ncharitable actions, not at all. It is to make an observation about patterns of
\ncaring.<\/p>\n
\naccount of his involvement with the production of formaldehyde, a carcinogen,
\nwhich his company has successfully prevented from being regulated as such. <\/span>If her information is accurate – and
\nher conservative critics have so far ignored the case – this is a black mark on
\nDavid Koch’s empathy that goes some distance in explaining why only truly
\npowerful and wrenching experiences are sometimes needed to open their
\nhearts. <\/span>I wonder whether Koch’s
\nposition on formaldehyde would differ if it was linked to just <\/a><\/i>prostate cancer<\/a> in particular. <\/span><\/p>\n