The article is pretty straightforward that this guy was funded by Koch and similar.

So is it that he was influential, or that he was useful?

Obviously the money he got helped him be more influential in the academy. But the people who studied under him were themselves attempting to be useful to money.

This is my whole thing with Know Your Enemy. As intellectual history it's all fascinating, but does any of it matter? How many people ever cast a vote based on a Buchanan op-ed or whatever?

Speaking of assholes.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/04/09/russia-soldiers-ukraine-war-crimes-meatgrinder-human-waves-brutal-violence-protest

I guess it doesn't matter, those people don't care about what's actually being done much less who influences in writing. I was just taken aback at seeing sympathy for Calhoun.

45 minute videos, maybe not the friendliest way to share ....

Translated transcript of the video here:
https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2025/04/translation-chai-jing-interview-with-a-chinese-mercenary-fighting-for-russia-in-ukraine-part-one/?amp
Might want to contol+f Part One

I admit to not watching a 45 minute video. But the transcript was interesting (and disturbing). Thanks both.

Whether he directly influenced any voters are not, thanks for the link. An interesting read. He is someone I was vaguely aware of it, but did not really understand his key role in the conservative school of economics of which the George Masonites are part of.