Skip to main content

A Peek Under the Hood at the Koch Agenda

It’s hard to feel sorry for a guy like Kyle McKenzie. Knowing he’s the research director for Stand Together, an advocacy group owned by the Koch family, I’m not inclined to sympathy.

But as a former advertising guy, who once sat through too many focus groups to count, I know well how consumer research can undo the best-laid plans.

In McKenzie’s case, the plans were to figure out how the Kochs should handle HR1 — the massive voting rights bill now reaching the Senate — where they are once again on the wrong side of history. McKenzie was charged with finding ways to undermine any positive perceptions the public might harbor about making it easy for people to vote.

What they were looking for was a message — any message — that might convince the public that the right to vote is overrated.

We know this thanks to the amazing Jane Mayer of The New Yorker. Somehow, she obtained this eye-opening audio of a ten-minute conference call, in which McKenzie presents his research findings to his bosses.

In it, you can hear McKenzie — in his most genial, research-presenter-with-slideshow voice — working hard to make the best of what he’s reluctant to tell his boss is an utter disaster. As tap dances go, it’s not bad.

The presentation was January 8, a mere two days after the Capitol insurrection, and a full two months before it became blatantly obvious that red state GOP legislatures were hellbent on stripping voting rights from as many people as possible.

Back then, the good folks on McKenzie’s focus group panels — presumably “average Americans” all — had, for the most part, never heard of HR1. But when presented with a “neutral description” of the bill, virtually everyone was wildly in favor. Including conservative voters. This is not what a research director wants to tell his bosses.

Even worse, while he couldn’t come up with any message that was an actual winner, he did manage to identify one huge loser. When presented with the notion that “HR1 stops billionaires from buying elections,” people on both the left and right loved it — overwhelmingly. Democrats, are you paying attention?

But there were actually a few messages that gained a little traction, and you can feel McKenzie working up to them.

There was the idea that even liberal groups, like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, were against the bill. Huh? This was, of course, not even remotely true. It was a hypothetical, but the panels weren’t told that. Predictably, it got them thinking that, gee, if both liberal and conservative groups are against it, maybe we should think twice.

But the idea that actually did get a better-than-tepid reception from the panel was the notion that Congress has too many other things on its plate. That Congress is way too busy right now to be worried about something as trivial as the right to vote. And at the front of the line of these “other things” was — wait for it ­— “healthcare” and “the economy.”

And with that we go right down the rabbit hole. Just imagine poor McKenzie, having to tell the Kochs that the best way to get rid of voting rights is to focus your efforts on healthcare. Or on economic relief. Neither of which come within light years of the Koch agenda. Yet that was their one winner, and you can be sure they’ll be fashioning bogus healthcare and economic messages around it, if they haven’t already.

But the conclusion McKenzie comes to — weighing his words very carefully — is that turning voters against HR1 won’t work. He even off-handedly suggests that they might do better with, get this, “under-the-dome-type” strategies. The dome being Congress. He doesn’t elaborate on what those strategies might be, but after all these years of Mitch McConnell, we can safely guess that parliamentary obstruction will play a key role. Especially the filibuster.

So what are we to make of this presentation, this peek under the hood where the real horsepower of the GOP resides?

For one thing, it could explain why Republicans are hyperventilating so much about the filibuster. HR1 puts a floor under voting rights and gerrymandering, and if they can’t use the filibuster to block its passage, they might never win another election. That’s not acceptable.

But mostly this recording makes two things absolutely clear:

The first is that the Kochs and their ilk are, in fact, determined to keep buying elections.

The second is something that has been obvious since Reagan, but has rarely been so clearly underlined: For them, everything is about the messaging, nothing is about reality.

Nowhere in McKenzie’s presentation does he even vaguely hint that maybe working on real solutions to the country’s real crises — as opposed to just messaging about them — might resonate a little more with their focus group panels.

But the right is totally invested in these messages, to the point where their entire track record is made up of nothing but. No accomplishments, just messages. All those messages — going back decades — have been lies. And most of those lies have been repeated so often, they’ve become myths.

Underneath the mythology, the real agenda is tax cuts and deregulation. Period. Both of which are deeply unpopular. So they hire guys like McKenzie to distract. They buy and pay for false messages, and they invest billions in spreading them around. It’s a well-oiled machine, and it’s been really effective for a long time.

But listening to McKenzie’s presentation, you can’t help feeling that they’re rattled, even if only a bit. The last thing they ever want to see is an election they can’t buy, which makes HR1 a real threat. And that “under-the-dome” strategy is looking shakier all the time — it’s not a coincidence that so many GOP senators have announced their retirement.

So McKenzie’s presentation is a fascinating and, yes, chilling look at how the messaging sausage gets made. And how it will keep getting made going forward.

Never mind that the market for the sausage is shrinking. Never mind that the ingredients are getting smellier, more contaminated, and much harder for all those “average Americans” to digest.


Comments

  1. Or "More GOP Bullshit." The voters who support them are just not bright enough to see what is going on just as the heavy-duty Trumpists had no idea that he actually hated them and wanted them dead. He only wanted their votes and didn't give a shit what happened after they voted for him. Now Mitch says big business should stay out of voting rights. Always remember to hate Mitch out loud every day at least once.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best news I heard today is that Oregon is requiring that all students take a civics course in high school. Unfortunately the mandate doesn't take hold until 2026, long after the next election. Folks need to wise up to the hypocrisy. Yes Mitch, business should stay out of government and corporations are people, a la "Citizens United". I guess corporations are "citizens" Mitch!

      Nice job as usual Andy!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

France and Britain Just Gave the Finger to Fascism

There is now ample evidence that people with democratic systems of government actually like them, and would just as soon keep them, flaws and all. There seems to be a strong backlash occurring in several European countries, a trend toward shoring up democracies threatened by toxic authoritarian forces. In Poland last year, then in France and Britain last week, actual voters — as opposed to deeply compromised opinion polls — gave a big middle finger to the fascists in their midst. I don’t pretend to understand the electoral systems of these countries — let alone their political currents — but I’m struck by the apparent connections between different elections in different countries, and what they might be saying to us. I’ve spoken before of Poland , where ten years of vicious minority rule was overturned at the ballot box. A ban on abortion was the galvanizing issue — sound familiar? — and it brought an overwhelming number of voters to the polls, many for the fir

Don’t Let the New York Times Do Your Thinking

  My father would not live any place where the New York Times couldn’t be delivered before 7:00 a.m. To him, the Times was “the newspaper of record,” the keeper of the first drafts of history. It had the reach and the resources to be anywhere history was being made, and the skills to report it accurately. He trusted it more than any other news source, including Walter Cronkite. Like my dad, I grew to associate the Times with serious journalism, the first place one goes for the straight story. Their news was always assumed to be objectively presented, with the facts front-and-center. Their op-ed writers were well-reasoned and erudite, even when I thought they were full of shit. But there was more. The Times became — for me, at least — a sort of guide to critical thinking. It helped teach me, at an impressionable age, to weigh the facts before forming an opinion. And many of my opinions — including deeply-held ones — were formed around facts I might have read

Democrats, Step Away from the Ledge

  Anxiety comes easily to Democrats. We’re highly practiced at perceiving a crisis, wanting to fix it immediately, and being consistently frustrated when we can’t. Democrats understand consequences, which is why we always have plenty to worry about. Republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about consequences — which is, let’s face it, their superpower. I wasn’t intending to write about last Thursday’s debate, mostly because I post on Tuesdays, and this could be old news by the time it gets to you. But then the New York Times weighed in with a wildly disingenuous editorial calling for Joe Biden to drop out of the race, and the rest of the mainstream media piled on. In the Times' not-so-humble opinion, Biden needs to consider “the good of the country,” something their own paper has repeatedly failed to do for almost a decade. And since this is now the crisis du jour for virtually every Democrat who watched that shitshow, I thought I might at l