He’s committing a decent chunk of change towards the defeat of GWB in the upcoming election. And he’s using his contacts and experience garnered through his efforts in effecting change in the former Soviet Union and other spots to bring this about.
Will it work? Can a single rich man have that much effect on the swing states required to put the eventual democratic candidate into the White House?
And if so…is this right or wrong? Or merely neutral?
An abuse of power? Or merely a natural extension of a political man with a surfeit of cash?
An extension of the corrupting influence of big money on the political process or a natural outgrowth of the expensive campaign process?
With all due respect, he was more explicit in an interview about 6 weeks ago:
Soros calls for ‘regime change’ in US
“I am very hopeful that people will wake up and realise that they have been led down the garden path, that actually 11 September has been hijacked by a bunch of extremists to put into effect policies that they were advocating before such as the invasion of Iraq.”
Mr Soros added that there was a “false ideology” behind the policies of the Bush administration.
“There is a group of - I would call them extremists - who have the following belief: that international relations are relations of power, not of law, that international law will always follow what power has achieved,” he said.
"And therefore [they believe] the United States being the most powerful nation on earth should impose its power, impose its will and its interests on the world and it should do it looking after itself.
“I think this is a very dangerous ideology. It is very dangerous because America is in fact very powerful.”
In other words, he’s taken a position on the administration’s chances of re-election, a financial position because that’s what he does. While he may care to dress it up in liberal, ethical clothes, the man is a financier and stock market gambler; he’s shrewd and he’s working his angle. He rarely gets it wrong.
So, in answer to your question, It would seem to me he’s taking them on at their own game; rich, self-interested, capitalist white man vs. rich, self-interested capitalist white men.
I’d take it as an early indicator of Bush’s re-election chances as Soros is known for the reserch his organisation does; possible scenario’s would have been modeled for months before he went public.
As I understand it, the League of Marxist MBA’s is throwing it support behind him. But he’s an amatuer, he needs to take lessons from the real Minions of Moloch. The Forces of Darkness know how to let money perform its political magic without being the center of public attention.
For a rich guy, he ain’t very smart. All the other rich guys, they all say its because they’re real smart.
You ask the BIG questions in American politics don’t you? Geesh
Will it work? Can a single rich man have that much effect on the swing states required to put the eventual democratic candidate into the White House?
I am fairly sure there is no way he can drop enough to turn a turkey candidate into a winner. I doubt he can drop enough to turn an election by himself. But in a special circumstance, say Florida 2000, if Soros had pumped in $10 million in media buys the week before the election could it have mattered? Yes. But I doubt the next election will be that close…could be wrong would have said the same thing 11/11/99
And if so…is this right or wrong? Or merely neutral?
An abuse of power? Or merely a natural extension of a political man with a surfeit of cash?
I think of it as neutral – at the Presidential level, titanic forces are crashing against each other – it doesn’t matter that much what an interest group says no matter how much they can spend (see above).
The obvious exception I can think of – If Soros or any one man, or group of men, “won” the election for the President theoretically we could develop a situation like Russia, where a group of very rich oligarchs rule the Country.
An extension of the corrupting influence of big money on the political process or a natural outgrowth of the expensive campaign process?
I’ll go with natural outgrowth. It is all about the $$$
Glad you started this thread. I was going to do it if no one else did by tomorrow.
I say: Go for it, George (Soros, that is)! Capitalism at it’s best. Spend your money as you see fit. I wish I knew how to say “bring it on, baby” in Hungarian.
At least if the Dems lose, they’ll have less reason to whine about how the Pubbies had all the rich folks “buy the election” again. IIRC, Bush has something like $200M in his war I mean camapaign chest, so this is still a long way from parity. Soros is just one guy, but maybe he’ll get Streisand, et al to do something similar.
And I see that elucidator has already started sand bagging.
Soros is one smart cookie. He’s a media head because that got him a lot of investors and capital. He’s in the limelight not because he is stupid but by design.
He is just one guy. I mean look at Ross Perot, another billionaire that really did have a great effect. On the other hand, Ralph Nadar on a shoestring certainly did have a big contributing effect to who is now our current president.
George Soros is a self made immigrant, and in a lot of American circles, a self made billionaire talking about the economy is given a lot of weight. Ditto with Warren Buffet.
An immigrant from behind the iron curtain talking about democracy and police states also has a lot of credibility as opposed to some middle class anarchist college kid.
Certainly George throwing his weight against Bush is a positive for the dems and a negative for Bush.
Even rich amateurs get to have a say. If sneakiness will get the job done better, what’s a liberal to do?
(Every time I discuss politics lately, I feel like I need to punctuate it with a noise maker like one of those shrill plastic whistles that looks like a man on a motobike, circa 1950.)
Soros is one smart cookie, as others have already mentioned. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were about 73 other layers of tactical maneuvering behind this than what’s already visible to the naked eye. It will take some pondering to figure out what those layers are composed of, however.
Soros is being described as a libertarian in the news reports. I’ve followed his business career a bit, but know little about his politics. I vaguely remember him trying to parley some influence with Clinton, but being snubbed.
If he really is a “libertarian” it’ll be intersting to see how that plays out. Maybe the League of Marxist MBAs have a surprise waiting for them…
And I don’t think the Perot analogy holds. Perot was spending his own money to elect himself. Soros appears to want to act in ways that won’t put himself in the political limelight of office holding but rather bring down a candidate he thinks of in less than positive terms. That’s more a public relations and policy approach rather than an ego approach (and anyone who thinks Perot wasn’t about a big chunk of ego is fooling themselves).
Evidence for this is that Soros, according to the article, isn’t backing a single candidate but rather four. He’s contributing money to Clark, Gephardt, Dean and Kerry (IIRC).
This is less about promoting an agenda as destroying someone elses.
I feel a little awkward having the beliefs I have now that Soros has come out with much the same. I mean, after the Asian financial crisis in '98 and all…
So, is the guy really Satan or were those countries financially fucked without the help of Soros and the other currency speculators?
AFAIK, Soros pulled out because the countries’ economies were fucked, not the other way round. However, with that much wonga behind him, it was bound to have a catalyzing effect, accelerating something that was going to happen in time anyway.
