Fox News Hypes ‘Free State’ Study By Koch Brothers Think Tank

When you see a headline on Fox News that says “Americans Are Migrating to More Free Republican States,” it’s a safe bet that it emanates from an untrustworthy, right-wing source. That is precisely the case with the study that Fox is heavily promoting that ranks the “liberty” of the various American states and concludes that the highest ranking “red” states are more popular than those of the socialist-leaning “blue” variety.

Fox News

This suspiciously partisan study was produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. What Fox does not inform their audience is that the Mercatus Center is a Koch Brothers-funded entity that is notorious for its overtly biased research that promotes conservative, libertarian principles. Source Watch notes that…

“The Mercatus Center was founded and is funded by the Koch Family Foundations. According to financial records, the Koch family has contributed more than thirty million dollars to George Mason, much of which has gone to the Mercatus Center.”

The founder of the Mercatus Center is the same Koch Industries executive who later founded both of the Koch-backed Tea Party groups, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. All of these entities were created to advance the financial and political interests of the Koch brothers. The notion that this think tank would command any credibility is absurd, but what’s worse is that Fox endorses them without disclosing who they really are.

The study itself draws conclusions that are skewed sharply toward libertarian values. The methods they use to rank the “liberty” of each state illustrate how biased they are. The highest weighted criterion to be considered “more free” is “Tax Burden” at 28.6%. Nothing else even comes close. You could be a political prisoner who is denied free speech and prohibited from voting, but if your taxes are low this study would consider you free.

The next highest weighted criterion is “Freedom from Tort Abuse” (11.5%), which victims of medical malpractice or corporate negligence might find curious. They would probably regard the freedom to seek compensation for serious injury or death a fairly important liberty. In fact, the freedom from tort abuse might better be described as the freedom from responsibility for catastrophic harm. This divergence demonstrates how one person’s freedom is another’s tyranny. The rest of the methodology is laughable and paints a disturbing picture of what Mercatus regards as the pillars of liberty. For instance:

  • Health Insurance Freedom (or the freedom to die prematurely for lack of health care)
  • Labor Market Freedom (or the freedom to be fired, discriminated against, and denied union reps)
  • Gun Control Freedom (or the freedom to own armories that rival a military base)
  • Campaign Finance Freedom (or the freedom for the wealthy to buy elections)

Furthermore, Mercatus values the freedom of smokers to foul the air wherever they wish unencumbered by the alleged freedoms of non-smokers; the freedom from seat belt and helmet laws that have been proven to save lives; freedom for cable and telecom companies to consolidate and gouge their customers; and of course, civil liberties which Mercatus inexplicably defines as…

“…a grab bag of mostly unrelated policies, including raw milk laws, fireworks laws, prostitution laws, physician-assisted suicide laws, religious freedom restoration acts, rules on taking DNA samples from criminal suspects, trans-fat bans.”

Not only does Mercatus exclude any mention of racial, religious, gender, or other discrimination in the definition of civil liberties, there is almost nothing that progressives regard as criteria for freedom in their rankings. Freedom of speech, or of the press, is missing entirely. Freedom of reproductive choice is not a consideration. Voting rights are nowhere in their criteria. Safe workplaces, a clean environment, accountability for politicians and corporations; fair administration of justice – none of these things are tabulated in the Mercatus methodology that overwhelmingly favors property rights over any other.

It is no wonder, therefore, that North Dakota ranked as their number one destination for freedom seekers. It was followed by South Dakota, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Idaho. Those are some of the lowest population states in the country. At the other end of the scale, New York ranked as the least free state, followed by California and New Jersey, which are amongst the most populous states. What is clear, if this study is to be believed (which would be foolish in the extreme), is that Americans, by the millions, have chosen to live in tyranny. They have snubbed those states that the Koch brothers think are bursting with freedom and embraced oppression and servitude (silly Yankees). This even includes David Koch, who lives in New York City.

The truth is that this is a study that affirms the freedom to make the Koch brothers as rich as possible. It is disguised as a study promoting liberty, but the weightings of the criteria reveal its ulterior motives. And the fact that Fox News would offer up this self-serving bunk as a serious exploration of American lifestyles, without acknowledging the affiliations of the authors, is itself a violation of the public’s right to be free from propaganda and disinformation.

Advertisement:

7 thoughts on “Fox News Hypes ‘Free State’ Study By Koch Brothers Think Tank

  1. I agree with you Mark.

    However, this country regards freedom and democracy as synonymous with purchasing power and the ability to rob others of theirs. It is not real freedom. It is a different form of the same bigoted justifications of old when Kings and Queens, Dukes and Duchesses ruled by supreme fiat. It is the supreme fiat of fiat currency. It is the world the Koch Brothers live in. They feel their wealthy status is God’s favor. It becomes their license to unleash contempt and prejudice on the rest of us with impunity. I lived in Orange County.

    I had the pleasure of speaking to a millionaire while going for a walk through the park. He seemed nice enough. We talked about economics and politics while playing with his dog. He all but told me capitalism existed since the dawn of humanity; we need unregulated free-market capitalism to be truly free, no politics; and, people who are homeless and poor are that way due to their own inequities. This from a Russian from Johannesburg; go figure.

    It is true what you said, “one person’s freedom is another’s tyranny.”

  2. The highest weighted criteria to be considered “more free” is …

    Please. Either the “criteria” “are” or the “criterion” “is”. Subject and verb are expected to agree with respect to singular vs plural. Since the point of this paragraph is that there is one single criterion that vastly outranks the others (“Nothing else even comes close”) you weaken the punch by beginning with the implication that there are multiple criteria that rank together as “highest weighted.”

    Although the following paragraph similarly violates subject-verb agreement, the uses of “criteria” following that do appropriately refer to cases of more than one criterion.

    Thank you for an otherwise-excellent article!

    • OH geez a grammar natzee. This is the interwebs and the tubes that connect them will just have to live with grammar that doesn’t meet your standards as often as not.

      Great article is all you needed to say.

      • OH geez a grammar natzee.

        No, “concern troll.” If you’re going to complain, at least get your terms right. (And singular vs plural is pretty basic, btw.)

        Great article is all you needed to say.

        “Picky, picky” is all you needed to say.

  3. So do you liberals think that its any different when liberal leaning sources promote studies that support the liberal agenda?

    • I think that when the media cites studies by private groups they should disclose any relevant affiliations that might bias their results.

  4. Studies such as this may show itself to be true or not now that municipal bankruptcies are a reality – let’s watch how Stockton California handles it’s bankruptcy – does it go crazy and step on everyone and everything to save itself or does it do the right thing and deal with its fiscal issues as it should – I bet I can answer it now – private bond holders are getting screwed as we speak, sucks to invest in anything in that state, now we’ll see how government treats the people when it’s in trouble.

Comments are closed.