The Vision Thing

Bill Schambra comments on the NCRP's examination of the success of "conservative" philanthropy and delineates some concerns shared by conservatives and progressives in regard to "establishment" philanthropy.

He doesn't tackle the accusations that conservatism and corporate gigantism are happy bedfellows, mutually fueling some massive power takeover, but his observation, quoted below, does make this accusation look rather farfetched, given the comparative giving power of "conservative" and "establishment" foundations:

While conservative grantmakers might be tempted to bask in this lavish praise, doing so would miss the point of these reports. Their real purpose is to shame liberal foundations such as Ford, Rockefeller, and MacArthur—each one of which annually disburses more than the 79 foundations NCRP studied combined—into adopting the techniques described. NCRP and its allies assume that if one could just attach effective conservative methods to liberal purposes—that is, if one made grants for general operating support over many years to groups marshaled behind a coherent liberal vision—the result would be a progressive movement in America every bit as powerful as the one nurtured by conservative foundations.

emphasis mine

Comments

[Gerry]

Very interesting article. One might conclude that the big liberal foundations are only interested in the problem or working it rather than doing anything about it. I think we agree on the common ground which is interested in cultivating “a renewed, healthier, and more vigorous sense of citizenship among the American people” through “healthy families, churches, neighborhoods, voluntary associations, schools, and other value-generating ‘mediating structures.'”

But in contrast to conservative strategic philanthropy, we want to retain the progressive goals of egalitarian, multicultural understandings of justice, but not through a top down order imposed by the philanthropic elite. We seek multicultural understanding through experiencial processes at the grass roots that put people together in voluntary purposeful associations that seek to help people cross boundaries and connect with people that otherwise might not associate with.

I clipped the phrase above from this sentence: But it has no particular affection for groups animated by radically egalitarian, multicultural understandings of justice dramatically at odds with the Framers' view. I can accept this characterization for foundation liberalism (in part), but I could spin some equally objectionable statements about the mission of "conservative strategic philanthropy" to place them at odds with American values. I note particularly that their program has not resulted in smaller government, and I would place the Patriot Act at their feet as something profoundly at odds with the Founder's intent.

[Lenore Ealy]

See, Gerry.. there are lots of things we'll find in common. The Patriot Act and the entire growth of government in the past century are also not things I applaud. In fact, I think there's a real danger that even the best conservatives are really Progressives, now!

As for that multicultural justice thing.. I think it's an oxymoron. Justice is rightly blind. There should be procedural rules that apply to everyone... and substantive law should not apply to special interest groups. When we outlawed slavery in the U.S., the point was not merely that no man should own a black man, but that no man should own any other man. The universal case should be sufficient to enforce the principle across all sub-cultural groups.

[Gerry]

And see, there is something you are willing to be critical of. The Patriot Act is just the tip of the iceburg of issues that cut this way. People who are conservative in the best sense, you and others I respect, have to take a long hard look at who their political friends really are. I can understand if many of them can't make themselves vote for Kerry, but to vote for Bush again after all he and his neocon revisionists have done, that I can't understand.

On multiculturalism I think we can have a lively debate about ideas. Justice may be rightly blind, but in practice this is impossible. We can and must deal with cultural biases in the justice system, but I would go further and suggest that because truth is necessarily a product of human discourse and experience, it is necessarily rooted in cultural narratives. I'm willing to posit universals that underlie these narratives, but whether these are grounded finally in human biology, or in the Mind of God is non-determinate in any absolute sense.

The existence of universals gives us hope that we can still have "one justice for everybody", but neither is it right to declare say, English is the one and only language of a world court, if such jurisdiction is established. As a pragmatic matter, our justice system is embedded in a largely mono-lingual and mono-cultural context and minority groups are always going to bear the burden of the translations. It would be nice just to have the issue recognized as valid.

[Gerry]

Just read the link from Giving Space to Bono's commencement speach. http://aol.beliefnet.com/story/146/story_14683_4.html This is the quality of equality that I'm interested in, and the kind of commitment to the future. Ben Franklin is my favorite amoung the Founders.

[Lenore Ealy]

It's a great speech, Gerry, and I think Bono helps make the point I've been trying to make in our exchange under "Remembering Reagan." Bono's speech is much more effective, I believe, for the very reason that he doesn't spend a lot of time criticizing today's politicians, but instead calls a bunch of energetic young college grads to follow their Muse. And he inspires them to find a Muse that is worthy of their spirit and can conttribute to what Tom calls "uplift."

And what gives Bono the credibility to speak this message? A lot of years being a musician, in which he accumulated the money and fame that allow him now to try to become an effective catalyst of critical change in Africa. His Muse has taken him to a higher place, where his voice begins to really make a difference.

I don't find it very uplifting to bemoan the shortcomings of politicians. I think most of what they provide us is ephemeral-- (notwithstanding, I think it's arguable as many have done in the press of late that what was not ephemeral about Reagan was the renewed sense of hope in America he sparked). Yes, presidents can bequeath us bad laws, but they don't do it without the complicity of the legislative branch, and when they do use the power of the Executive to expand law and regulation, I think that's symptomatic of one of the most dangerous legacies of the Progressive Administrative state.

So, rather than bash Bush, with whose policies I have plenty of gripes, I had rather focus on undermining the ideas and conceptual frameworks that underpin the excessive power of the Executive branch and disrupt what our Founders intended to be the self-correcting mechanism of a balanced constitution. And I like thinking and talking about the ideas that fed this radical experiment and hope in self-government that the Founders bequeathed us. And I'd rather spend time understanding just how Herbert Croly sold his convoluted interpretation of American constitutionalism to the 20th century and how we can begin to understand what correctives are needed and even possible.

[Gerry]

Thanks, Lenore. I can agree with all of this except for Reagan. I won't push you further on the political stuff, you have satisfied my skepticism about just where you stand. You have been gracious throughout the process, and I appriciate that a lot. Clearly there are some things we will continue to disagree on and possibly still have productive exchanges of ideas.

You need to understand that not everyone got all those warm fuzzies from Reagan, and until the current example, I considered him the worst president in recent history. I still think that history will judge him harshly after all the sycophants fade away. So, if you don't want to continue talking about politics, don't talk about Reagan. In my book he was either incompetent of a criminal just like the current president, perhaps the main difference is he was a better liar.

And thanks for the education, WRT Herbert Croly in this case. I've learned a lot hanging out with Phil's characters and WB, and you bring a complimentary set of ideas to the table that expands the range considerably. Tell me more about what you value in Croly. I googled him and found a summary of his ideas from "The Promise of American Life" and what I've read already is very intriguing.

[phil]

"I had rather focus," you wrote, Lenore, "on undermining the ideas and conceptual frameworks that underpin the excessive power of the Executive branch and disrupt what our Founders intended to be the self-correcting mechanism of a balanced constitution." That is interesting common ground. But I wonder about the anti-regulatory part of your position:

"Yes, presidents can bequeath us bad laws, but they don't do it without the complicity of the legislative branch, and when they do use the power of the Executive to expand law and regulation, I think that's symptomatic of one of the most dangerous legacies of the Progressive Administrative state." How do you frame discourse about the commons, patrimony, and the resources, like air, water, parks, and folklore or even art, that make up our shared heritage. How are these to be protected against private incursion, without robust regulation? What is to prevent Freedom from meaning a Chemical Company dumping toxins? Or belching smoke out its chimneys? What will protect our parks and common spaces?

At some point you need an account of the commons and public goods. Where do you point to such a theory? In other words what is the proper role of goverment in creating and sustaining public goods?

[Lenore Ealy]

Thanks, Phil. I'm not expert on issues of public goods, the commons, etc., but the work I respect most in this area is being done by two groups:

PERC--Property and Environment Research Center. Their most recent Report on such issues in Africa just landed in my mailbox, but I haven't had time to browse through it yet. You can check out their work online if you're interested --http://www.perc.org/publications/percreports/june2004/index.php

ICES--Also opening up new frontiers on these issues is the Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science http://www.ices-gmu.net/subcategory.php/99.html headed by Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith.