The psychiatric world defines "projection" as the act of denying unpleasant qualities in yourself, while attributing them to others. Consider liberal billionaire Tom Steyer's riff this week about the libertarian billionaire Koch brothers.
Mr. Steyer took exception in a C-SPAN interview to comparisons between his big-dollar funding of Democrats with the Koch brothers' big-dollar funding of Republicans. The Kochs' priorities "line up perfectly with their pocketbooks—and that's not true for us," said Mr. Steyer, who is fighting against the Keystone XL pipeline. Moreover, he insisted, his politicking is "completely open," whereas the Kochs have "not been huge embracers of transparency."
Why is Mr. Steyer so touchy about motives and transparency? The media tend to give liberal spending a pass, since they assume its motives and aims are pure. Mr. Steyer's problem—and he knows it—is that his own purity remains hugely suspect, even among his allies.
It's old news that the billionaire reaped his fortune at hedge fund Farallon Capital, via investments in "dirty" oil and coal projects. Mr. Steyer, who retired from the firm in late 2012, has since publicly repented for his prior investment ways. But what many greens remember is that he didn't do so until he was caught.
Mr. Steyer had spent months fighting Keystone, attending anti-coal rallies and urging colleges to divest from "fossil fuels," before the press noted that his money was still parked at Farallon, still profiting from Kinder Morgan pipelines and coal projects. It was only then, last July, that Mr. Steyer issued a press release saying he'd directed his money be moved to a fund that didn't invest in "tar sands" or "coal" and pledged this process would be complete by the end of 2013.
Tom Steyer at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas in August. Getty Images
And don't think that environmentalists failed to notice Mr. Steyer's specific divestment instructions. He did not say in that July press release that he was pulling his money from "fossil fuels"—only tar sands and coal. That may be because Mr. Steyer as recently as 2012 wrote an op-ed in this newspaper supporting more natural-gas extraction, and last year (as the Keystone debate raged) he helped fund a University of Texas study that supported fracking. Farallon over the years has held positions in natural-gas companies.
It's no crime to acknowledge that natural gas reduces carbon-dioxide emissions, though Mr. Steyer's green collaborators uniformly oppose fracking. The billionaire, aware of this liability, has of late made some tougher criticisms of gas drilling but has hardly ruled it out—as he has other "dirty" energy.
Is he still invested in natural gas? Have White House attacks on coal and Keystone made those investments more profitable? We don't know because beyond the July divestment promise, Mr. Steyer hasn't specified where his money sits (including whether it sits in renewable projects reaping taxpayer subsidies). Turns out Mr. Steyer isn't very "transparent" about his finances. Attempts to reach him for comment were unsuccessful.
All of this has furthered green suspicions that Mr. Steyer is motivated by more than climate. He basked in the local attention he gained from California ballot-measure fights to keep the state's climate program in place, and to hit out-of-state businesses with new taxes to finance clean-energy projects. He gave up his Farallon job as he was being mooted as a possible Obama energy secretary. He's suggested a run for the California governor's mansion. That might once have been a long shot. But his pipeline campaign, and pledge to spend $100 million in this midterm election, has gained him a national profile. Keystone has provided a pretty good political return on investment.
Then there is Mr. Steyer's pledge. When he announced the $100 million in February, he said the money would be used to pressure officials to enact climate legislation. Greens happily assumed this meant a repeat of the big money Mr. Steyer spent in the 2013 Massachusetts Senate primary race, bashing Democrat Stephen Lynch for his support of Keystone. Indeed, on Mr. Steyer's initial target list for his $100 million was pro-Keystone Democrat Mary Landrieu.
Mr. Steyer then spent some quality time with senior Democrats, who presumably explained that the establishment would not look kindly on a would-be governor who blew their control of the Senate. Ms. Landrieu came off the list, and Mr. Steyer has downgraded his criteria for playing in races to whether "something important" is at stake. Democratic operators are thrilled. But one can imagine that the absolutist environmental community—not exactly famed for its nuance or pragmatism—is wondering what exactly happened to all Mr. Steyer's putative principles.
So, yes, Mr. Steyer is keen to suggest that everyone else—not he—is motivated by ambition or pocketbooks, and isn't open in dealings. To have any hope of maintaining his rep as a green hero, he has to.