This article expresses our frustration with arrogant, clueless billionaires like Bill Gates, Eli Broad, Betsy DeVos, Michael Bloomberg, Reed Hastings, the Waltons, the Koch brothers, and Mark Zuckerberg. We have long known that they don’t like democracy. It gets in the way of their grand plans to change the world. Why should we—the targets of their plans—have any say? Those of us who are not billionaires think that they should stop rearranging our lives. We don’t want them to disrupt our lives and our institutions. We believe in the idea of one person, one vote. We are losing faith in democracy because these plutocrats have more than one vote. They use their vast resources to buy elections and, what is even cheaper, to buy politicians.
Anand Giridharadas frequented their circles, mainly at the Aspen Institute, which made the mistake of inviting him to join them as a Fellow. He confirms what we suspected. These people are a threat to democracy. They think they are “doing good,” but they are destroying democracy.
It begins:
“In 2015, the journalist Anand Giridharadas was a fellow at the Aspen Institute, a confab of moneyed “thought leaders” where TED-style discourse dominates: ostensibly nonpolitical, often counterintuitive, but never too polemical. In his own speech that year, Giridharadas broke with protocol, accusing his audience of perpetuating the very social problems they thought they were solving through philanthropy. He described what he called the Aspen Consensus: “The winners of our age must be challenged to do more good, but never, ever tell them to do less harm.” The response, he said, was mixed. One private-equity figure called him an “asshole” that evening, but another investor said he’d voiced the struggle of her life. David Brooks, in a New York Times column, called the speech “courageous.” That lecture grew into Winners Take All, Giridharadas’s new jeremiad against philanthropy as we know it. He weaves together scenes at billionaires’ gatherings, profiles of insiders who struggle with ethical conflicts, and a broader history of how America’s wealth inequality and philanthropy grew in tandem.”
Fauxlanthropy!
I called it “villainthropy.”
I call it parsimony.
I call it villainthropy!!!!!!
yes; it is so truly problematic that the media refuses to acknowledge the chasmic difference between heart-felt non-profit philanthropy and philanthrocapitialsm
“In his own speech that year, Giridharadas broke with protocol, accusing his [Aspen Institute] audience of perpetuating the very social problems they thought they were solving through philanthropy.”
Here’s the link to Giridharadas’ speech, powerful and courageous, mindfully stepping into the lions’ den…
I think your title would be better if it were Why Misguided Philanthropy Is Bad for Democracy. I consider LeBron James’ efforts in the Cleveland schools to be very well designed. Not so much for the likes of the others mentioned: the half baked, poorly informed, money can buy what “we” want and to hell with everyone else crowd.
Diane As a relevant aside from Nonprofit Quarterly.org:
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2018/08/28/satire-modest-proposal-american-schools/?utm_source=NPQ+Newsletters&utm_campaign=f47506cf41-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_11_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_94063a1d17-f47506cf41-12886885&mc_cid=f47506cf41&mc_eid=cc73fe1cff
First paragraph: “A Modest Proposal to Improve American Schools”
“SATIRE”
“Betsy DeVos’s Department of Education has proposed to liberate school districts from the oppression of a long-held federal position that not only infringes upon the sovereignty of local governments but interferes with schools’ ability to create conditions conducive to good discipline and practical learning. Her proposal to use federal funds to buy guns for teachers is a strike for freedom against the liberal education elite.”
Interesting. Thanks for the link, Ed!
Those in attendance surely thought about what Giriharadas said for perhaps a minute or two, maybe even discussed what he had to say over cocktails that evening. But when they woke up, the intellectual hangover would be easily assuaged by conscience easing talks the next day. . . and then. . . back to their insulated reality that crushes us peeons below.
The realist in me knows that the apostate will eventually be folded back into the “community” as he calls it. The prodigal son will be welcomed back (after of course his book makes a ton of money). Ah, the rarefied air of Aspen for those who are part of the CLUB.
Ever the cynic.
I understand his epiphany—I had one too. There is no going back to The Club.
No one ever became a billionaire by writing books. Unless God gets royalties.
YEP! Ever the cynic! Proudly self-labeled as such*.
And I’ll verify that one doesn’t become a billionaire by writing books! But that is not what I said nor meant to imply by my sarcastically cynical statement.
I hope that you are correct about his “no going back to the club. Time will tell, eh!
*CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic’s eyes to improve his vision. (A. Bierce in “The Devil’s Dictionary”)
He wrote himself out of The Club. As did I. It’s liberating.
I hope so! And what he said was definitely “telling truth to power”. You could hear a pin drop while he was speaking. Polite applause at the end.
As it is, for those of us never allowed into that “club”, especially for me, I’ve seen too much talk and not enough action. His book is a positive action, especially in context of the “club” of the Aspen Ideas Festival. I hope he follows up on it for the rest of his life-lives it, rejects that “club” atmosphere. Como decimos “vamos a ver”.
These types of public-private partnerships cut the public out of the decision making process. Government can then collude with the wealthy “benefactor.” The result generally reflects the will of the wealthy “donor,” not necessarily the will of the people. Government is supposed to by of, by and for the people, but not if government is working with the 1% to undermine democracy. We have seen this play out repeatedly in the privatization of education. The public is deliberately omitted from the decision making process, but they are left with the consequences of the decisions that are imposed on them.
As I am sure you realize, all of this stems from the day that Ronald Reagan persuaded voters that “Government is the problem” and unleashed deregulated capitalism on the world…. and Bill Clinton and Al Gore didn’t help things very much when they bought into the idea of “Reinventing Government”… Unfortunately the idea that government can actually HELP people is so noxious that the GOP uses the label “government schools” to run down public education, and no one in the Democratic party is running on a platform that “Government is Good”.
wgersen Our government documents–the ones that public servants take an oath to–claim to have the power and good of the people (public) as their central tenet.
What oligarch do you know, or corporation, or CEO even make that claim, much less try to stick to it? CBK
Thanks for this post. After Hurricane Katrina the remaining unelected “leaders” decided on the 9/11 New York model that bypassed the city council. They were stopped by the returning public but not before they ethnically excluded 100,000 blacks from returning. This anti-democratic campaign was funded by the ASPEN orbit and continues to dominate the New Orleans recovery and schools. I am still waiting for people of conscience who work in the foundations to speak out against this injustice.
The Aspen Board includes David Koch and Madelyn Albright- there’s no reason to believe people of conscience are at the Institute. Gates-funded Pahara is an Aspen program.
It’s good to see you back here, Lance. I (I’m sure it’s “we”) have missed you, here.
I have been asking people in cities which have been privileged (!) w/the Paul Vallas Privatization Experience to PLEASE write an editorial to the Chicago Sun Times about what hell he hath wrought–Chicago is in grave danger of his being elected mayor (yes, he’s running for mayor. A recent poll has him in 2nd place, after Rahm).
Unfortunately, people in Chicago are totally unaware of what chaos he has wreaked upon New Orleans, Philadelphia &, had attempted, in Bridgeport, CT. He also didn’t do such a hot job at Chicago State University (& not all of that made the news, either, but that’s a whole other story) He had run for Lt. Gov 2 years ago, & none of his prior
shenanigans ever came up. HELP!
A window into why Dems lost 1000 elected seats in an eight year period as well as the presidency in 2016- Chuck Schumer proposes renaming the Russell Bldg. for McCain and, the GOP balks.
The Dem establishment’s scheme is to move the party to the right and to get Republicans to switch parties- a strategy loved by the richest 0.1% like Gates, who funds the Center for American Progress.
The Democrats are re-branding themselves as the “We’re Not the Party of Trump”…. It leaves most voters wondering what they are FOR and since they can’t really say what they are FOR it opens the door for Fox News et al to define them…
Dem establishment and the investment bankers at Third Way are happy to have Fox define them and to stand for nothing. Fortunately, true progressives are on the rise. Gillum won in the Florida primary.
“Gillum is strongly opposed to unaccountable for-profit charter schools”.
Excellent read. Thanks for the post.
Just a reminder, folks. We can whine all we want about villainthropists, they are symptoms of a sick economy, & shaming them as though they are people who may change their ways if their moral turpitude is called out is a fool’s errand. (Are we saying we want beneficial billionaire benefactors running govt policy?) Villainthropists are an inevitable creation of deregulation/ failure to enforce [& defunding enforcement of] laws put in place post-’29-Crash to tame Robber Barons & spread wealth more equitably —
and tax cuts for the rich — and (especially – & of primary impotance), zero campaign reform, as epitomized by the Cit-United decision.
Lately it seems as tho the only pols trying to turn this cruise ship around are running as progressives or socialists or Dem Soc à la Europe. Maybe that’s how change has to start, but I for one would be satisfied w/a return to “trammeled” capitalism.
Not saying I don’t love Anada Giridharadas’ cogent thoughts, I do, & glad they’re getting wide press coverage. Breaking the public’s rose-colored glasses on billionaires running policy under guise of philanthropy is one of the ways to help voters understand that action needs to be taken to restore democracy.
Here’s an excellent New Yorker article by Elizabeth Kolbert that draws on Anada Giridharadas’ abandonment of the Aspen crowd and illustrates how philanthropists undercut democracy in the Gilded Age and how they are doing it again today: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/08/27/gospels-of-giving-for-the-new-gilded-age?mbid=nl_Magazine%20Only%20082018&CNDID=21532699&utm_source=Silverpop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Magazine%20Only%20082018&utm_content=&spMailingID=14098640&spUserID=MjI2MjM0MTc0MjcyS0&spJobID=1461827938&spReportId=MTQ2MTgyNzkzOAS2
In Arizona, the U.S. Senate race pits an investment bankers’ Democrat (Third Way) against the GOP candidate. The Dem, Krysten Sinema, is a 2018 “Champion for Charter Schools”.
All one can say is the worst Dem is better than the best Republican.
Interview with the same person on the same topic today on PBS
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/29/642688220/generous-giving-or-phony-philanthropy-a-critique-of-well-meaning-winners
A lot of well-meaning liberals — and it’s going to, it hurts to hear this — but a lot of well-meaning liberals paved the road for Trump. And they did so in two ways. First of all, by peddling a lot of pseudo-change instead of actually fixing the American opportunity structure, instead of actually repairing the American dream over the last 30-to-40 years — by doing that, they allowed some of the biggest problems in this country to fester for decades and not be solved. And I think it’s very plausible that had we actually been solving those problems of trade and education and social mobility, Donald Trump would simply not have had the oxygen that his conflagration required. But they also enabled Trump in a second way, which is: They contributed to the correct intuition, across large parts of this country, that elite Americans have rigged the game for themselves.