Why the Koch Endorsement Matters

Plus: The Bulwark debates Nikki.

(Composite / Photos: GettyImages / Shutterstock)

"That will throw the girls in the path of other rich young men!" — Mrs. Bennett in Pride and Prejudice

Happy Wednesday.

Let’s begin by stipulating the obvious: Nikki Haley is unlikely to beat Donald Trump for the GOP nomination, for all the usual reasons. His lead in the polls is formidable and apparently immune to his pullulating derangement.

So, what should we make of the decision of the Koch network — Americans for Prosperity — to endorse Nikki Haley and throw its resources behind her effort to derail a Trump nomination?

The NYT broke the story yesterday:

The political network founded by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch has endorsed Nikki Haley in the Republican presidential nominating contest, giving her organizational muscle and financial heft as she battles Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida to be the top rival to former President Donald J. Trump.

Trump is not taking it well.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, said in a statement, “Americans for Prosperity — the political arm of the China First, America Last movement — has chosen to endorse a pro-China, open borders, and globalist candidate in Nikki ‘Birdbrain’ Haley,” adding that no amount of “shady money” would stop Mr. Trump from winning the Republican nomination and the election.

But will it make a difference? Can Koch-Haley actually stop Trump at this point?

My colleague Tim Miller was asked what advice he would offer to Team Koch. “Start 6 months ago,” he told Semafor. “Ten, maybe.”

Over at The Nation, Joan Walsh is similarly cynical, suggesting that the endorsement is “the political equivalent of a participation trophy, bestowed on someone who worked hard while losing?”¹

It feels like another exercise in political delusion: a powerful mainstream Republican force pretending Trump doesn’t control the party.

Probably. But that doesn’t mean that the endorsement is inconsequential.

First, it brings Haley tangible benefits at a key moment. The NYT notes that Haley’s campaign does not have the organizational strength that DeSantis does.

The endorsement from the super PAC established by the Koch brothers could help change that. It will give her access to a direct-mail operation, field workers to knock on doors and people making phone calls to prospective voters in Iowa and beyond. The group has money to spend on television advertisements, as well.

But perhaps even more important is the double signal that the Koch endorsement sends: It’s time for the GOP field to consolidate; and Nikki is going to be the last woman standing.

That sends a clear message to the GOP donor class, which is Haley-curious, but harbors serious doubts about their ability to change the trajectory of the race. The Koch move could shake that money tree. (Looking at you, Ken Griffin, Steve Schwarzman, Paul Singer, Keith Rabois, Tim Draper, and Jeffrey Yass.)

This, of course, is precisely what did not happen in 2016, and we know how that turned out.

The announcement also comes at a strategically important moment: Mike Pence is out. Tim Scott is out. Desantis is sinking. Vivek has become a comic side-show. Chris Christie continues to wage a quixotic and noble battle against Trump, but essentially has a one-state strategy (New Hampshire).

Which leaves Nikki Haley.

Of course, one sparrow does not a summer make, but there are signs of Nikki-mentum: “In South Carolina homecoming, Haley’s ‘town hall’ turns into a full-blown rally.”

Haley does have a burst of momentum.

Following Scott’s departure and with DeSantis bleeding support, Haley is the one candidate to whom new donors and supporters are flocking in the primary’s undercard race. And for Republicans desperate to block Trump from gaining the nomination, South Carolina’s early primary may be crucial.

**

The Koch endorsement also sends another message.

The network could easily have sat out the race, bowing to the inevitable Trump coronation. But they decided that stopping Trump was now so urgent that they would (1) set aside their own ideological differences with Haley, and (2) take the risks of antagonizing the MAGAverse.

As the NYT notes:

Over the past few years, the Koch network has spent tens of millions of dollars opposing the foreign policy views that Ms. Haley has espoused. She has been among the most hawkish in the Republican presidential field on aid to Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion, while the Koch-backed group Concerned Veterans for America has opposed American involvement in that conflict.

Ms. Haley has also criticized the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, a policy change that the Koch network campaigned aggressively to bring about. And she has advocated military strikes in Iran, while the Koch foreign policy operation has opposed military action against the country.

By endorsing Haley despite those differences, David French notes, the Koch Network was signaling that it “isn't engaging in purity tests, but rather pragmatic efforts to save our democracy.”

I think there's an under-appreciated aspect of this endorsement: Haley isn't exactly aligned with the larger Koch world on foreign policy, yet the endorsement came anyway.

Now is exactly the time when seeking the perfect is the enemy of the good. There are no perfect substitutes for Trump, but there are substitutes who would be so substantially better than Trump that it's not really an argument. One of the best ways to encourage compromise for a greater good is to model compromise for a greater good.

That's exactly what I'm seeing here, and it's incredibly positive.

**

Will’s reaction…

My colleague Will Saletan also had an upbeat reaction to the Koch endorsement and was willing to endure the on-line slings and arrows of his progressive friends for whom anything Koch-related is anethema.

“This is a very good thing, even if you don’t like the Koch network,” he wrote on Threads. “One of the main drivers of the current Republican madness is a warped primary electorate that incentivizes pathologies such as election denial. We need more people from the middle, including the moderate right, to dilute the power of the fanatics. Don’t wait for the general election when it’s a nail-biter between a Democrat and an authoritarian….”

That drew the expect blowback, and Will responded:

This post is drawing criticism from progressives who object to favorably describing what the Koch network is doing in the GOP primary (backing Haley against Trump). Their basic argument is that the Kochs are bad. I can't speak for everyone at [the Bulwark].

But on the whole, our view is that Trump is an existential threat to democracy. All sensible Americans — left, center, and right — should focus on blocking his return to power. And that starts by trying to knock him out in the primary.

He added:

“If Trump returns to power, and I didn't try at every opportunity to prevent that — including in the primary — I won't be able to forgive myself.”

**

Exit take: It should be obvious by now that the Bulwark contains multitudes, including today’s debate over Nikki Haley.

• The case FOR Nikki: Give ’Em Hell, Haley! - by Robert Zubrin - The Bulwark

• The case AGAINST Nikki: Nikki Haley Stands for Everything and Nothing - by Jill Lawrence - The Bulwark

---

David French: It’s a Cult

Don’t underestimate the power of the belief that Trump is part of a prophecy for many evangelicals. And don’t underestimate the general lack of knowledge about Trump’s corruption. Plus, putting pressure only on Israel does the work for Hamas. David French joined me on Tuesday’s podcast.

You can listen to the whole thing here. Or watch us on YouTube.

BONUS: A Little Light Fascism

Mona Charen and I consider Haley's chances, Musk's rehabilitation attempt, and the cult of the Orange Duce.

Bulwark+ Members can listen to the whole thing here.

---

Quick Hits

1. Liz Cheney’s new book blasts GOP as ‘enablers and collaborators’ of Trump, whom one member called ‘Orange Jesus’

Via CNN:

The book, “Oath and Honor,” which was obtained exclusively by CNN ahead of its Dec. 5 release, is an unflinching account of what Cheney calls the GOP’s “cowardice,” and how so many were willing to support former President Donald Trump, who she calls “the most dangerous man ever to inhabit the Oval Office.”

Cheney delivers a particularly devastating takedown of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who she says told her that Trump knew he’d lost the election. Cheney is also critical of McCarthy’s successor, House Speaker Mike Johnson, who “appeared especially susceptible to flattery from Trump and aspired to being anywhere in Trump’s orbit,” she writes.

---

2. The plot thickens on a Mike Pence Jan. 6 recusal

Aaron Blake in the Wapo:

ABC News reported Tuesday that on Christmas Eve 2020, Pence had momentarily decided against presiding, in part because it would be “too hurtful to my friend.” ABC also reported that Pence has testified that Trump personally suggested that he recuse. (The Washington Post has not independently confirmed the reporting.)

“Not feeling like I should attend electoral count,” Pence wrote in notes obtained by special counsel Jack Smith, according to ABC. “Too many questions, too many doubts, too hurtful to my friend. Therefore I’m not going to participate in certification of election.”

Pence testified that he reversed course after a conversation with his son, who cited the vice president’s constitutional duty, according to ABC. The date of that conversation is not clear, but it came at some point during a trip that Pence took to Colorado, which records indicate lasted from Dec. 23 to Jan. 1.

---

3. Congress Might Finally Rid Itself of George Santos

Joe Perticone in yesterday’s Press Pass:

This afternoon, Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who each sponsored resolutions to expel Santos earlier in the year, filed a privileged resolution to expel Santos. The House will have to take it up within two legislative days. Guest has not indicated whether his resolution is privileged or not, which Goldman told reporters was a factor in moving forward with his own.

Since the publication on November 16 of the Ethics Committee’s report, many lawmakers who voted to save Santos last time around announced that they would change their votes when another expulsion resolution is brought to the floor. They’ve all been given the green light thanks to Guest, who after several months of near silence, has made clear he wants Santos out of Congress.

---

Cheap Shots

1. Like many on the left, Walsh also blames Koch for the political environment that spawned Trump in the first place: “There’s also deep irony here. As the major financial and political force behind the reactionary, anti-Obama Tea Party movement, AFP helped create Trump, the man it is now trying to defeat.”