Print

Print


 

 		 [Anand Giridharadas, author of Winners Take All, on how
well-meaning liberals paved the way for Trump] [https://portside.org/]


 WHY PHILANTHROPY IS BAD FOR DEMOCRACY  
[https://portside.org/2018-09-04/why-philanthropy-bad-democracy] 

 

 Nick Tabor 
 August 26, 2018
Daily Intelligencer
[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/anand-giridharadas-on-winners-take-all.html]


	* 
	*
[https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A//portside.org/2018-09-04/why-philanthropy-bad-democracy]
	*
[https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A//portside.org/2018-09-04/why-philanthropy-bad-democracy]
	*
[https://twitter.com/intent/tweet/?text=Why%20Philanthropy%20Is%20Bad%20for%20Democracy&url=https%3A//portside.org/2018-09-04/why-philanthropy-bad-democracy]
	* [https://portside.org/node/18069/printable/print]

 _ Anand Giridharadas, author of Winners Take All, on how well-meaning
liberals paved the way for Trump _ 

 , 

 

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
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP7HajXJD3s&feature=youtu.be] that
year, Giridharadas broke with protocol, accusing his audience of
perpetuating the very social problems they thought they were solving
through philanthropy. He described
[https://medium.com/@AnandWrites/the-thriving-world-the-wilting-world-and-you-209ffc24ab90]
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
[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/opinion/david-brooks-two-cheers-for-capitalism.html]the
speech “courageous.” That lecture grew into _Winners Take All_
[https://www.amazon.com/Winners-Take-All-Charade-Changing/dp/0451493249?ascsubtag=[]di[p]cjl3uy17o00492vye0lh4k7t7[i]PkGkDh[z]m[d]D],
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.

HOW DID YOU FIND YOURSELF IN THIS WORLD OF PHILANTHROPISTS AND
“THOUGHT LEADERS?”
A friend nominated me for the Aspen fellowship. I went through an
interview, then I got a call late one night, in early 2011, basically
saying, “You’ll meet four times over two years for a week each.
You’ll sit in a room with 20 other people, discuss Plato and
Aristotle and Gandhi, we’ll talk about our lives, and it will be an
advice circle, all very private.” It was generally businesspeople
and entrepreneurs who want to make a difference, to shift from just
making money to giving back. Every year they invite two or three
people who don’t fit that profile, to spice it up slightly —
journalists, artists, people designed to be a little renegade-y.

IT SEEMS THAT THIS EXPERIENCE MADE YOU EVEN RENEGADIER. WERE YOU
IMMEDIATELY RADICALIZED?
I would love to tell you I figured it out within two minutes, but
these things are seductive. It was a drip-drip-drip-drip of moments
where you thought, “Wait a second, why are we sitting in the Koch
building? Why is this event funded by Monsanto, and by Pepsi, which
seems to be changing the world by fattening kids? Why is Goldman Sachs
a sponsor of our annual summer retreat?” The reality of the world
outside kept getting worse and worse, and the people in the
fellowship, and the sponsors, seemed to be the very people sucking
most of the juice of progress. What I started to realize was that
giving had become the wingman of taking. Generosity had become the
wingman of injustice. “Changing the world” had become the wingman
of rigging the system.

YOU QUOTE A GREAT LINE FROM THOMAS PIKETTY: HE SAYS, “THE DURABILITY
OF THIS SYSTEM DEPENDS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ITS APPARATUS OF
JUSTIFICATION.”
Yes! I read that line in a moment where I was thinking, “What is
this book?” The apparatus of justification, that’s what this all
is! I’ve never been back to Aspen since I finished the fellowship.
I’ve been told, in many subtle ways, that I’m not welcome back. No
one is more easily offended than the person who thinks they are
changing the world. Because they think, “I could be burning this
money or spending it on a yacht.” There’s a simple critique that
says, “All this philanthropy is a drop in the bucket,” and I think
they would all agree to that. But my critique goes way farther than
that: ‘This is a drop in the bucket that is upholding the
problem.” The idea that their kindness _is_ how a bad system is
maintained — it hurts them in a way that’s hard to overstate.

THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER BOOKS, SOME QUITE GOOD
[https://www.versobooks.com/books/1845-the-new-prophets-of-capital],
ATTACKING THE RHETORIC OF “CONSCIOUS CAPITALISM,” BUT THEY TEND TO
BE AIMED AT LEFTIES. YOU SEEM TO BE TRYING TO PERSUADE A GENERAL
AUDIENCE.
I am, by temperament, a flamethrower, but my editor helped me
understand that if you don’t tell this through the stories of people
struggling with this, you’re not going to get behind enemy lines. My
first draft was more like me throwing rocks at this world. My editor
said, “First of all, that’s a fight you’re not going to win.
Second of all, there _are_ people in these worlds who think you’re
right. Tell us their stories.”

WHAT DID YOU LEARN BY INTERVIEWING THEM?
They educated me on how complicated some of this stuff was. Amy Cuddy,
the social psychologist I wrote about, helped me understand that for
many thinkers like her who want to speak to the plutocratic confabs,
yeah, you can just keep it real, and give one talk there and never
come back again. But if you’re someone like her, a real feminist who
has a lot to say, maybe it _is_ valuable to stay in there. I still
think the people she’s speaking to are using her, but she was very
real with me about how she calibrates it.

STARTING WITH THE MOST EGREGIOUS OFFENDERS IN YOUR BOOK: THE SACKLER
FAMILY DONATE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ART MUSEUMS AND UNIVERSITIES, BUT
THEY WERE ALSO DEEPLY CULPABLE IN CAUSING THE OPIOID CRISIS, LYING
ABOUT THE DANGERS OF OXYCONTIN.
Right. The CDC now estimates that 200,000 people have died in the
opioid epidemic. Just think about that for a minute. Those are
genocide numbers! Not only have they not gone to jail, their names are
in the Brooklyn Museum.

SO WHAT’S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HARM AND THE PHILANTHROPY?
I think we are all busy and fragmented and tired. We make sense of the
world through very small shards of information, and when we think of a
Sackler or a Zuckerberg or an Elon Musk, there are a couple words that
come into our heads, then we move on. So what people like the Sacklers
do is use giving to make sure the initial, shallow perception that you
and I have, that journalists and regulators and potential prosecutors
may have, is, “Oh yeah, that’s that family that gives to the
arts.”

ARE THERE SUBTLER EXAMPLES OF HARM DONE BY PHILANTHROPISTS?
Mark Zuckerberg talks all the time about changing the world. He seldom
calls Facebook a company — he calls it a “community.” They do
these things like trying to figure out how to fly drones over Africa
and beam free internet to people. And in various other ways, they talk
about themselves as building the new commons of the 20th century. What
all that does is create this moral glow. And under the haze created by
that glow, they’re able to create a probable monopoly that has
harmed the most sacred thing in America, which is our electoral
process, while gutting the other most sacred thing in America, our
free press. And they do it under the cover of changing the world. If
JP Morgan tried to pull off what I just described, they wouldn’t be
able to. Why? Because we’d all be like, “‘Why is a _bank_
deciding what our press should be like? Why is a bank redoing our
election system? Why is a bank the only bank in America?”

IT WAS INTERESTING TO READ IN YOUR BOOK THAT FOUNDATIONS CREATED BY
ROCKEFELLER AND CARNEGIE WERE INITIALLY CONSIDERED OUTRAGEOUS AND
UNDEMOCRATIC. NOW THEY’RE CONSIDERED BEYOND REPROACH: “HOW CAN YOU
CRITICIZE PEOPLE FOR GIVING THEIR MONEY AWAY?”
And people on the left will criticize other people on the left for
making the same criticisms Theodore Roosevelt made 100 years ago. But
look at Andrew Carnegie’s essay “Wealth”. We’re now living in
a world created by the intellectual framework he laid out: extreme
taking, followed by and justified by extreme giving. We’re living in
a world in which the government feels it would be an unwarranted
extension of its sovereignty to ensure that the minimum wage is a
living wage. But at least before the new tax law, we spent $60 billion
a year subsidizing charitable deductions. If we didn’t give them
that tax break, it could pay a wage subsidy, it could give us all a
lower tax rate, whatever.

A FRIEND IN THE TECH INDUSTRY TOLD ME ONCE THAT HE THOUGHT POLITICS
WERE POINTLESS, BECAUSE YOU CAN GET “MORE JUICE FOR YOUR SQUEEZE”
BY TRYING TO CHANGE THE WORLD IN OTHER WAYS. HOW WOULD YOU HAVE
RESPONDED?
[_Hangs head_]

IT’S A FAIRLY COMMON PERSPECTIVE!
You’re baiting me. I’m trying to be a nice person, though. Tending
to the public welfare is not an efficiency problem. The work of
governing a society is tending to _everybody_. It’s figuring out
universal rules and norms and programs that express the value of the
whole and take care of the common welfare. That is an inherently, and
rightfully, and _beautifully_ inefficient process. Corporations get
more “juice from the squeeze” because corporations don’t solve
very complicated problems. God bless ’em, but making Pepsi or
manufacturing a car seat is an easy problem. Governing 350 million
people is an extraordinary thing that we have discredited in this age
of markets. The right has discredited it head-on, explicitly,
intentionally, but the left has passively assented to its
discrediting.

By the way, I would say most places in Europe _don’t_ live in
Carnegie’s world. If Mark Zuckerberg went to Europe and said,
“I’m changing the world,” everybody would look at him like,
“What are you talking about?” So I mostly wrote the book to
discredit them as world-changers; if the public just sees through it,
it will take away a lot of their power. I just wanted to take a lot of
the weird valence off the word “thought-leader,” to make it a
joke, so that no one ever uses it again in an un-ironic way.

WE’D ALL BE INDEBTED. BUT WHAT WOULD COME AFTER THAT?
I think we need to return to politics as the place we go to change the
world. Next time you see a problem, think about what a public,
universal, institutional, and democratic solution would be. But now
let’s get more practical. For one, I think society should take on
the college tuition or the college debt of anybody who chooses to do
public-sector work. There could also be public housing for people who
work in the public sector. New York could say, “If you want to build
this big building, you’ve got to build some affordable housing _and_
reserve some of it for people who are teachers and council-members,
maybe even some activists.”

HOW DO YOU THINK THE PHILANTHROPISTS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE TRUMP
ERA?
I think well-meaning liberals, which include most of the people I’m
writing about, paved the way for Donald Trump. By promulgating
pseudo-change all these years, they staved off actual reform. It is
certainly possible to imagine that if we’d actually reformed trade
and education and gone after the opioid crisis, Trump would not have
been president. Also, philanthropists gave Donald Trump a lot of his
language. He’s the ultimate phony billionaire-savior. A lot of his
maneuvers are intellectual moves that took root long ago among this
plutocratic-giver class: “I alone can fix it.” For decades, these
people have said they have some special ability because of their
private-sector skill.

ROMNEY RAN ON THE PROMISE OF BEING AMERICA’S CEO.
I’ve been hearing that language for a long time. Same with the idea
that billionaires can fight for the common man’s interest because
they are above it all. Like Trump says, “I don’t need the money”
— that’s a Bloomberg idea. Even Trump’s veneration of the
entrepreneur, and his despising of government — these
philanthropists have laid the track. And not just right-wing people;
well-meaning liberals have slowly participated in this denigration of
government’s effectiveness. So when I see Donald Trump, I see a man
who has ridden the coattails of a lot of rich liberals.

	* 
	*
[https://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A//portside.org/2018-09-04/why-philanthropy-bad-democracy]
	*
[https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https%3A//portside.org/2018-09-04/why-philanthropy-bad-democracy]
	*
[https://twitter.com/intent/tweet/?text=Why%20Philanthropy%20Is%20Bad%20for%20Democracy&url=https%3A//portside.org/2018-09-04/why-philanthropy-bad-democracy]
	* [https://portside.org/node/18069/printable/print]

 

 		 

 		 

 INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT 

 		 

 		 

 Submit via web [https://portside.org/contact/submit_to_portside] 
 Submit via email 
 Frequently asked questions [https://portside.org/faq] 
 Manage subscription [https://portside.org/subscribe] 
 Visit portside.org [https://portside.org/]

 Twitter [https://twitter.com/portsideorg]

 Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/Portside.PortsideLabor] 

 		 

 


https://portside.org/privacy-policy

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
&*TICKET_URL(portside,SIGNOFF);