Remarks from a panel discussion on populism at the “Foundations on the Hill” event for foundation leaders and officials in Washington, D.C.
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.
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.
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.