Politics and the Pendulum – Part Two, The Survivors
Recap
My View: Expect Partial Transitions, Not Full Conversions
I don’t expect a wholesale “right becomes left” shift — not realistically. What I do expect is a fractured adaptation:
-
Some old-school GOP donors and influencers will try to migrate quietly into the center or even moderate left if it preserves profits or stability.
-
Others will try to hold onto the base, banking on division, identity politics, and fear — because that’s the emotional currency that’s already been spent to build power.
-
Some new networks — especially around money, tech, “dark money,” NGOs — will remain flexible, operating across partisan lines depending on what serves their interests best.
In short: the puppet-masters don’t always need the same puppets. They need heads that nod, money that flows, and power that endures.
If you like — I can pull up a list of about 8–10 powerful networks, donors, or institutions right now that seem likely to survive Trump — and might be positioned to shift if the political tides rotate.
Part Two continues here.
ChatGPT said:
There are several powerful donor networks, think-tanks and political-funding institutions that look likely to survive beyond any one election or personality. If things shift left (or even just toward a new balance), these players are among those most capable of pivoting to stay influential. Here are 8–10 of the most prominent right now — across both the conservative and progressive/left-leaning side — along with notes on why they’re structurally durable.
Major Networks & Institutions Likely to Persist Through a Shift
| Name / Network | Why They Endure /What Makes Them Resilient |
|---|---|
| Sixteen Thirty Fund (and affiliated Arabella Advisors funds) | Long-standing “dark money” powerhouse for the left. Provides fiscal-sponsorship and funding to many progressive causes and campaigns. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, it can channel money — often anonymously — into activism, ballot initiatives, and elections. Wikipedia+1 |
| Berger Action Fund (network tied to Swiss billionaire support of progressive causes) | Serves as a major donor funnel for progressive policy agendas. Its role shows how international money and large-scale philanthropy can influence U.S. politics regardless of which party is in charge. Wikipedia+1 |
| Priorities USA Action | One of the largest Democratic-leaning super PACs. Has shown flexibility in shifting strategy (e.g. moving toward digital campaigning rather than just TV ads), which suggests institutional agility in changing political climates. Wikipedia |
| American Bridge 21st Century | A major liberal opposition-research and election campaign group—effective at media and messaging work. Such infrastructures are portable: no matter who’s in power, they can redirect resources toward oversight, opposition, or new causes. Wikipedia |
| Tides Foundation / Tides Network | A long-standing donor-advised fund and fiscal-sponsorship network. Its versatile structure lets wealthy donors fund causes under the radar — meaning it can remain influential regardless of which party holds power. Wikipedia+1 |
| Major Conservative Mega-Donors (e.g. Richard Uihlein & family, Scaife-linked foundations, etc.) | These “big-money backers” have deep pockets and substantial influence on think tanks, policy-planning networks, and regulatory lobbying. Their funds tend to follow structural interests (tax law, business regulation, corporate incentives) — which can often survive major party shifts. DeSmog+2The Good Men Project+2 |
| Embedded Think Tanks and Policy Networks (e.g. Heritage Foundation, Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and other longtime policy infrastructure) | These institutions provide long-term ideological frameworks, produce research, influence judiciary nominations, shape legislation drafts — and have memberships, staffs, and networks that outlast electoral cycles. DeSmog+1 |
| Financial-industry donors and Super-PAC backers (e.g. Kenneth C. Griffin, other hedge-fund and Wall Street funders) | Money from big finance often plays both ends: campaign donations, policy lobbying, influence over regulation. Because their interest is often stability, deregulation, and favorable economic policy — not always party ideology — they can pivot if a left administration offers similar benefits. Fiscal Report+1 |
Why These Actors Are So Durable
-
Legal and structural opacity: Many are nonprofits or 501(c)(4) / donor-advised funds that are not required to publicly disclose all donors or spending. That secrecy makes them hard to trace — and easy to reorient quietly.
-
Networks over individuals: Their power rests in institutions, infrastructure, think tanks, PACs, and donor webs — not individuals whose fortunes rise or fall with elections.
-
Financial interests over pure ideology: Many of these players (especially donors, think-tanks, financial backers) prioritize economic, regulatory, and institutional stability — interests that survive either party being in power.
-
Adaptability: Super-PACs and nonprofit umbrellas can shift focus quickly: from supporting one party to supporting causes, ballot initiatives, or policy campaigns under any administration.
-
Trans-partisan appeal: Particularly for business interests and big donors — maintaining influence requires access from whichever side controls power. So pivoting becomes strategy, not betrayal.
What Could Disrupt This Durability
-
Major reform in campaign finance / donation transparency — if laws tighten, anonymity and dark-money flows shrink.
-
Economic collapse or disruption to corporate profits — institutional money depends on capital; if the economy sours, so does financial influence.
-
Mass public backlash / grassroots insurgency — if voters demand structural change, elite influence may become a liability rather than an asset.
-
Global shifts (trade, climate, geopolitics) that outgrow traditional domestic lobbying and require new alignments — making old networks obsolete or forced to transform drastically.
What This Means for “Pivoting” if Power Swings Left
-
Some will quietly shift — donors and institutions whose core interest is economic stability and influence may try to support or infiltrate left-leaning coalitions if that preserves their power.
-
Others will fragment or retreat — those tied to ideological extremes or controversial agendas may lose influence if public sentiment rejects polarizing agendas.
-
Some networks will morph:
-
Conservative-leaning think tanks might refocus as bipartisan policy institutes.
-
Dark-money funds might reposition as philanthropic or advocacy-oriented nonprofits with a new veneer.
-
-
Influence becomes more diffuse: Rather than backing a few big names, the money flows into smaller campaigns, ballot measures, media influence operations, or issue-based lobbying that can adapt to any political majority.
If you want, I can also pull up a matching list of 8–10 prominent networks/actors on the right that are most at risk (i.e. likely to lose influence if the pendulum swings) — helps show which power centers you’re betting will survive the shift, and which may collapse or fragment.
You said:
Yes, please do.
