Christopher DeMuth’s is a deeply insightful critique to be taken seriously, including by conservative philanthropy.
Considering the proper distance between charity and politics.
As establishment philanthropy defends its position in American society, it would do well to tend to more than just one flank.
Philanthropy is evermore concerned with “thinking big.” But are there virtues in “thinking small”—and what can you achieve then?
As shown in and by Sanford, Mich., starting one year ago, it’s often when massive devastation is visited on a population that it discovers its true character.
A letter to the editor of The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
In any real-life revision of the parable so often cited by philanthropists, there’s a strong likelihood that the philanthropists forging their way upstream to the source of the problem will never get there. As with the challenge of homelessness in L.A., they will instead become hopelessly entangled in the real-world obstacles that invariably complicate the drive for simplistic, root-cause solutions.
Conservatives would be wise to push for a bolder plan that addresses the conflation of political and charitable causes—and clearly defines what constitutes legitimate charitable goals. That’s the only way to ensure philanthropy doesn’t lose all credibility and become completely politicized. Let’s focus on what really matters.
Theda Skocpol and Caroline Tervo tell the story of Indivisible and its donor-driven succumbing to the siren call of “the DC-based nonprofit industrial complex.”