I think the reason is clear:

Olin, Coors, and Adelson vs Soros. One name sounds, what, more "foreign," no? Soros, that is European, right? Cosmopolitan. He a banker or something? "Foreign banker." It does not take a American cultural or literary historian to read the subtext of the anti-Soros argument.

(And you have to hand it to the right--it takes a special kind of demented to use anti-Semitic code words at the exact same time as accusing the person of working *with* the Nazis.)

Yet Soros, who spent most of his life funding democratization efforts in the post-Soviet bloc, is somehow radioactive. It's nuts.

Soros:

a) is Jewish
b) was born in a foreign country and has a funny accent
c) makes his money by trading money, rather than by making crappy beer or selling right-wing rag newspapers, or running casinos which may suck but are at least familiar products.

Yes, anti-Sorosism is stupid, xenophobic, and anti-semitic. So, remind me again why it's baffling that the right wing has successfully demonized him.

Quick OT comment, Ezra. With that big RECEIVE A FREE TRIAL ISSUE thing on the graphic of the new Prospect, the donkey looks like some kind of mutant bunny.

All of the above speculation is wrong.

The reason why "Soros-funded" unnerves people is because Mr. Soros uses his wealth and connections to unduly influence the politics in this country and he does it on a grand scale.
Another issue is Democrats advertise as the party of the little guy.....ya' know...grass roots democracy....will of the people stuff........and then there's George using every legal loophole he can to push as much money into his chosen political causes.

Wouldn't matter anyway. Right wing groups don't care what liberals think of them. I can't for the life of me figure out why the converse is true for liberals.

"The reason why "Soros-funded" unnerves people is because Mr. Soros uses his wealth and connections to unduly influence the politics in this country and he does it on a grand scale."

Isn't George Soros an American citizen? How could he unduly influence politics by exercising his Constitutional rights?

There may be a few twigs to hang some slander from in Soros case (as suggested above in comments), but the root causes of his minimization are same old, same old.

He's liberal/progressive, has lots of money, and his political work is a danger to the GOP and conservatives in general. In the Rove world, that's enough for unleashing the WMD.

So, predictable attack. And predictable media regurgitation.

And, equally or more, Dems/progressives/liberals just don't defend their heros: they act like the charges have some truth or can't be opposed just 'because'. And they won't even mention the counterpart conservative rich guys doing evil either.

The Democratic party wimp syndrome. Watch in amazement as yet another Dem is destroyed. Write a stern missive to other Dems. Withdraw in horror from association with the guy attacked. Enjoy being subjugated.

It is so predictable that Dems will run from the fight and tell their mommy that the other guys picked on us.

Too bad those muscles on the Am. Prospect's cover donkey are just air filled bags.

Dems perfectly fit the dictionary definition:

ef·fete –adjective
1. lacking in wholesome vigor; degenerate; decadent: an effete, overrefined society.
2. exhausted of vigor or energy; worn out: an effete political force.
3. unable to produce; sterile.

In other words: Losers

The right seems to be able to demonsize anything they want. The leftish side is apparently powerless to effect public opinion.

I am coming to believe that more people in our country are right leaning and that it's in their DNA to enjoy anger, feeling victimized, and constantly afraid that someone is trying to take something from them. it must be some kind of survival trait.

JimPortlandOR writes:

He's liberal/progressive, has lots of money, and his political work is a danger to the GOP and conservatives in general.

That's exactly right. Conservatives--and I'm one of them--don't agree with the sorts of "progressive" issues Soros throws his money behind, or the candidates he supports, or support his opposition to candidates we support. We thing he is wrong, up and down the line, and he could be a rich guy named Smith with a twangy southern accent and it would still be the same. He wants to advance the cause of socialism, and conservatives, generally, don't dig that. Nobody on the right gives a fig about his ethnicity or his accent--they care about how he's trying to affect public policy. Did folks on the right get him to pull back on funding bad ideas and trying to get bad policy made into law? Well, bully for our side.


Cathy writes:

The leftish side is apparently powerless to effect public opinion.

Oh, if only that were true. If it were, the debate on Global Warming would be over. So would the debate on drilling. Taxes would be lower, or flat. There would be a degree of privatization (opt-in) of social security. Charter schools and vouchers would be everywhere. And, frankly, I don't think we'd have Bush-sponsored things like the Department of Homeland Security or Medicare Part B.

Cathy also writes:

I am coming to believe that more people in our country are right leaning and that it's in their DNA to enjoy anger, feeling victimized, and constantly afraid that someone is trying to take something from them.

Drugs are bad, mmmkay? I'm a conservative. I'm not particularly angry, and I sure don't enjoy being angry. I'm not a victim. I'm not victimized. Some of the toughest stuff that's ever happened to me has, it turns out, been good for me, so it's hard to even look back on those things and feel like a victim. And being a victim doesn't do anybody any good. I'm not a victim of George Soros--I just don't want him to be successful in advancing his agenda, and I'm glad when he fails. Yay for the good guys!


I'm not afraid that someone is trying to take something from me, but I am skeptical of the good intentions of intransigent government bureaucracies. I'm also skeptical of people who call me on the phone and tell me if I give them my life savings they can double it overnight. All they need is my bank account number.

Honestly? You should be, too.

I am coming to believe that more people in our country are right leaning and that it's in their DNA to enjoy anger, feeling victimized, and constantly afraid that someone is trying to take something from them.

It's not anything as ideologically based, or as thought through, as being 'right wing'.

The salient fact in American politics is that there are enough people who would volunteer to live with their family in a cardboard box under a railroad bridge, and toast sparrows on an old curtain rod over an open fire, if you would only guarantee them that the people in the next box over -- black, gay, foreign, liberal, different -- don't even get the sparrow, to elect a president.

He wants to advance the cause of socialism...

Dude, grow the hell up. Everything you disagree with is "advancing the cause of socialism" to you. Grow a pair instead of whining that everyone you don't agree with is supporting "socialism." I'm getting pretty tired of these weak-kneed, hypersensitive right wing midgets screaming that everything they don't support is the spectre of "socialism." It's a sign of mental and intellectual weakness.

Look, the dynamic is simple and easy-- yes, Soros's "foreignnes" plays a role, but the actual dynamic of the whining and bitching from right wingers about Soros is because liberals and Democrats are not "allowed" to use the power of money to fund their projects and get their message across. It's only fair when Republicans like Richard Mellon Scaife and Richard Murdoch do stuff like that, and when Democrats criticize them, it's derided as conspiracy mongering.

Right-wingers are essentially, wimps, and that is the root of their anger about Soros. They can't handle it when Democrats bring in the resources to support what they believe in. Republicans believe that only THEY are allowed to do that. Yes, Soros is a liberal who puts his money where his mouth is. That's because he's an adult. Don't like it? Well, you right-wingers have been riding the gravy train of unearned wealth from do-nothing, know-nothing, think-nothing work that pays the salaries of people like Jonah GOldberg and Kathryn Lopez, while liberal thinkers have had to get real jobs and scrounge for money. Yeah, you might think it's "unfair" that liberals get paid for their good work while right-wingers like Bill Kristol gets paid by right-wing welfare to be an idiot, but that's the way it goes. Deal and stop thinking that everything is a Soros-funded conspiracy.

Kevin, your blatherings are nothing but the talking points placed there by right-wingers who've paid big money for put them out there. It's pretty rich of you to complain about rich liberals using money to get their message out.

I am coming to believe that more people in our country are right leaning...

Of course they are. It's always been that way. It's a "silent majority" out there that don't understand or want a nanny-state, and queer marriage.

Why is anyone surprised? The US ain't just New York City and San Francisco. It's Boise, Dallas and Atlanta too.

The right seems to be able to demonize anything they want. The leftish side is apparently powerless to affect public opinion.

I'm not sure if I'd go quite that far, but that's basically the whole of it. I don't think this really applies to substantive issues, but it definitely applies to narratives about process, and so forth. So the right can't make people hate whatever good cause Soros may be supporting, but they can effortlessly demonize Soros himself.

On the Democratic side, the Democrats are completely incapable of creating any kind of narrative that sticks which attacks Republicans.

I think Republicans try harder at this, and have been doing it for longer, but the media also pretty much totally buys into whatever nonsensical spin the GOP gives to whatever.

The relative "liberalism" of most reporters in substantive matters seems to largely pay itself out in them overcompensating for this by reporting whatever nonsensical Republican spin exists about non-substantive things as though it's gospel. Fair and balanced.

Jim,

Good comment, I read this on another comment page, it dovetails rather nicely with what you said.

From Adolph Reed, Jr., in The Black Agenda Report:

I’m increasingly convinced that the courts issue looms so large because the liberals have given away everything else. It feels ever more the property of Dem hacks who have to strain to find any basis for plausible product differentiation during election season. (A friend used to maintain that there’s so little difference between the two parties in this bipartisan era that people determine their allegiances in the same ways they sort themselves into Ford and Chevy people. Now I think it’s more like Buick v. Pontiac; they have the same structure and frame, same engine, and same chassis design - just different flourishes and labels.) It’s a deal-maker only if you accept the premise that formal preservation of Roe v. Wade is the paramount issue, the sine qua non, of gender justice in the United States or that holding on to the shreds of a mangled, “mended” version of affirmative action is the same for blacks. Those two areas don’t stand out so much when you add up everything the Dems have caved on that has more directly injurious effects on black people and women, often with more direct and persisting impact on reproductive freedom - or “choice” in the liberals’ capitulationist parlance - and economic security than abortion rights, which are exercised, at best, episodically, and affirmative action, the meaningful scope of which is effectively reduced by retreats in other policy areas. For openers, just think of comparable worth, welfare reform, publicly supported child care, cuts in Federal urban aid, education, the War on Drugs, NAFTA, the ethnic cleansing program of HOPE VI, corporate health care, privatization, abetting union-busting, fetishizing deficit reduction, as only among the most obvious areas where they’ve rolled over. For most blacks and women, most of the time, abortion rights and affirmative action are at best more symbolic than practically meaningful, particularly in a context in which in all those other areas that affect their lives directly, the Dems have already given away the store. Trying to stoke hysteria around abortion rights and affirmative action looks more and more like a feeble attempt to deflect attention from that fact, and to convince people who don’t stand to get much from a Dem victory that they should commit to them anyway - for the sake of those who do stand to benefit. I’ve finally realized what this move is all about: what makes the Dems every four years “better” is always something that the hacks and yuppies are likely to imagine getting if they win, and their disgusting moralizing about the imperative to vote for their “lesser evil” - which means “I may get what’s important for me, but you have to recognize that what you need is naïve or impractical” — is all about bullying the rest of us into believing we have an obligation to vote for what’s good for them.

I'm just wondering...

For all the bluster of Soros illicitly funding political causes here in America...what causes has he actually FUNDED? I mean, in any serious way? What big massive movements are fed by the big Soros juggernaut that the Right has created a boogeyman out of?

I'm just wondering, because it seems like for all that Soros might be funding under the table, there are dozens more virulent, ugly causes being funded above the board on the right.

From where I sit, there is not "There" there, which makes the successful demonization of Soros all the more boggling.

If you want an example of Soros funding just google the terms: "ACORN Soros".

For all the bluster of Soros illicitly funding political causes here in America...what causes has he actually FUNDED?

Here...try this:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/GEORGE%20SOROS'%20WEB%20OF%20OBSTRUCTION.htm

Well, I El V hadn't already jumped the shark, linking to discoverthenetworks seals the deal.

Pesto and crew only believe what Rhandy Roads tells them

...linking to discoverthenetworks seals the deal.

You may not like the messenger, but you have not refuted the message (asshole).

Say all of that linked info isn't true.

One big difference (generalizing broadly here) between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives really believe in the bogeyman, so all the Axis of Weevils (Rush/Hannity/Beck et al) have to do is put a face on him. Liberals don't scare so easily, at least not in that way. Might be better if we did.

"I am coming to believe that more people in our country are right leaning and that it's in their DNA to enjoy anger, feeling victimized, and constantly afraid that someone is trying to take something from them. it must be some kind of survival trait."

Except for the "right leaning" part, Cathy here has perfectly described today's Black America.

It's no secret what Soros funds.

Soros' Open Society Institute files a Form 990-PF every year. Publicly available by law, that form tells you how much staffers were paid, where all the money went, and more. Anybody - you, me, David Horowitz, Viajero - can take a look at that form and see exactly what Soros and his counterparts on the right - Scaife, Bradley, DeVos, Coors - are up to. They're required by law to tell you every year!

El V, posting links to Discover the Networks and then asking people to refute its lunacy is like posting links to a Scientology site explaining all about Xenu and the H-bombs in volcanoes, and a LaRouche website describing in great detail the nefarious role played by Queen Elizabeth in the international cocaine cartel headed by Henry Kissinger, the Pope, and the Trilateral Commission, and tossing in a link to a "the moon landing never happened" site -- and then demanding that everyone else disprove all the "facts" presented in the links.

David Horowitz and his funders aren't interested in the truth -- they're propagandists for plutocrats and reactionary loons. Anyone who takes Horowitz seriously is a grade-A moron.

Errrr......much of what was asserted was linked to sources, but you didn't even look did you?

Tha's OK. If you don't like that source, there are *plenty* of others. Here's a taste:

AP Reports 'Bush Lied' Study Funded by Ultra-leftist George Soros

Anti-war Soros Soros funded Iraq study

Again, say it ain't so

Ahh, now it's a link to The Media Research Center, which just happens to be funded by...many of the same reactionary lunatics who fund Discover the Networks!!

Oh no, wikipedia is probably part of the "network"! AAAAHHH, the jihadist Islamofascist commies are everywhere!!! Will no one save us??

It's just hilarious when the scumbags like the Scaifes, the Olins, and the Bradley Foundation pay hacks to issue reports accusing George Soros of meddling in American politics.

It's even more hilarious when idiots link to the identical pieces produced by their propaganda mills as independent "evidence" of some nefarious conspiracy.

Next up -- Lenora Fulani confirms Lyndon LaRouche's accusations against the Rothschilds!!!

And on the actual issue...that's the best you've got? Some researchers questioning whether Soros fronting $46,000 to some researches invalidates the Lancet study on Iraqi civilian deaths? Wow, what a nefarious, evil scheme to fund research published in respected journals, that's peer-reviewed and can be evaluated by professionals if its methodology is faulty!!

Today, he helps fund a study in The Lancet. Tomorrow, he forces it to change its name to the Medical Journal of the Glorious Islamofascist People's Revolution of United Islamic Kingdom!! AAAAGGGHHHHH!1!!!!!!1111