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.”
The appropriate context within which its eugenic past should be considered.
And wondering about the red cocktail umbrella.
The arcane, demanding jargon of strategic philanthropy is being replaced by an equally arcane, demanding jargon of social justice.
The reaction to Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination shows how the notion of God presents a challenge for the liberal intelligentsia, the cutting-edge moral and philosophical doctrines of which raise serious questions about any form of transcendent truth. For conservatism, a religious understanding of brokenness can only better it.