Recent Books, Mostly By Liberals Or Progressives, Presciently Critiquing Progressive Philanthropy’s Effects

Worsened, Rather Than Mitigated

“By the Trump years, the Democratic party blob was collectively better coordinated, more politically focused, and much butter funded than ever before. Law, technology, and political polarization all came together to flood progressive politics with cash. Reflecting the general hardening of partisan teamsmanship, many nonprofits traditionally organized as 501(c)(3) ‘charitable’ organizations, from the NAACP to the ACLU, either branched off or fully converted into 501(c)(4)’s, able to engage in open lobbying and electioneering. But the party blob’s very growth, encompassing an endless array of old and new, worsened, rather than mitigated, Democrats’ difficulties in setting priorities, forging cohesive projects, and building meaningful connections with ordinary Americans in their communities.”

—         Daniel Schlozman and Sam Rosenfeld, The Hollow Parties: The Many Pasts and Disordered Present of American Party Politics, reviewed in “Donors, The Hollow Parties, distance, and democracy,” May 20, 2024

***

Professionals Who Publish Instead of Protests and Strikes

During the decades following the successful civil-rights movement, scholars have “documented the way the neoliberal turn was, for the activist Left, characterized by a shift to a shallow, professional, and often philanthropically funded model of ‘advocacy,’ one that elevates self-appointed leaders and elite experts to speak on behalf of constituencies to whom they are not directly accountable. Rather than organizing people to fight for themselves, these groups promote professionals who attempt to exert influence inside the halls of power. Instead of protests, they publish white papers; in place of strikes, they circulate statements; instead of cultivating solidarity, they seek access to decision-makers.”

—         Leah Hunt-Hendrix and Astra Taylor, Solidarity: The Past, Present, and Future of a World-Changing Idea, reviewed in “Philanthropy in (as self-defined, a ‘transformative’) Solidarity,” April 2, 2024

***

Missed Opportunity

There was “a post-pandemic labor boom” that “was like emerging from a dark cave into a daytime fireworks show. It was all going down! The party had started! Get on the dance floor or be left behind!

“And what happened? Did the institutions of organized labor—the AFL-CIO, the biggest unions in America, the richest nonprofits—spring nimbly into action to guide and nurture and take absolute advantage of this newfound hunger among working people? Not at all.”

—         Hamilton Nolan, The Hammer: Power, Inequality, and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor, reviewed in “Philanthropy, The Hammer, and the open question,” February 26, 2024

***

Denuded National Identity

George Soros “was making severance payments to many of his philanthropies to focus on fighting the nationalist, tribal backlash that has made him—and his foundation—persona non grata in his native land of Hungary and has made Eastern Europe not one open society but dozens of distinct nationalities. What [a 2021 New York Times article] didn’t say is that Soros himself helped cause the tribal backlash and, in the process, he has proven the limits of his own vision: the open society and the open market that came with it, what we call neoliberalism or globalism, is not a beneficial thing when it’s pushed to its extremes—when it means the denuding of the nation-state or of national identity. What we’re seeing now, politically, is what comes from that extreme push.”

—         Martin Peretz, The Controversialist: Arguments with Everyone, Left Right and Center, reviewed in “Martin Peretz on George Soros and his philanthropy,” January 22, 2024

***

Nonprofits Are the Deep State

“It’s true that nonprofits can be more reliable, more responsible, and better resourced than less ‘official’ groups. It’s also true that nonprofits can be overly cautious, mired in internal bureaucracy, structurally inclined toward centrism, and extraordinarily risk-averse. …

…

“[T]his line of criticism has nothing to do with the leftist bona fides of individuals who work for left-leaning nonprofits. Indeed, many of the nonprofit workers I’ve known have been very committed radicals. But this is precisely the point: nonprofits tend to be staffed by leftists and structurally conservative. They avoid risk because risk can undermine the continuing operations of the organizations. They resist change because implementing change can result in reprisals from authority within a given nonprofit. They avoid direct action and extralegal means because they have their special tax status to protect. The nonprofit sector’s conservatism isn’t about the people but about the nature of all institutions. It’s also about the power of inertia; as [Paul] Klein noted, ‘Many charities are mired in an old approach to social change that is also reflected in how they raise funds.’ …

“[N]onprofits are the deep state of American political activism. They have influence beyond their numbers, they can direct the course of broad movements that should rightfully be led by volunteer organizers, and they pull those movements toward incrementalism and working within the system regardless of the radicalism of their employees.

—      Fredrick deBoer, How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement, reviewed in “A self-protective ‘deep state’ in the nonprofit industrial complex,” October 16, 2023

***

Justifying Philanthropic Privileges, or Not

“Philanthropy that comes with good intentions, careful strategy, and impressive results can often flout and even corrode another crucial value: the value of democracy.

…

“Using tax privileges, matching grants, special restrictions, and unique legal devices, the modern state gives the practice of philanthropy its particular strength and texture. Which if any of these regulatory strategies can be justified requires careful analysis and evaluation.”

—      Theodore M. Lechterman, The Tyranny of Generosity: Why Philanthropy Corrupts Our Politics and How We Can Fix It, reviewed in “Philanthropy’s corruption of politics, and vice versa,” January 12, 2022

***

***

Smart America

“You have a hard time telling what part of the country they come from, because they speak in the same public radio accents and their local identities are submerged in the homogenizing culture of top universities and elite professions. … They believe in credentials and expertise—not just as tools for success, but as qualifications for class entry. … They’re not nationalistic—quite the opposite—but they have a national narrative. Call it Smart America.

…

“Politically, Smart America came to be associated with the Democratic Party. …

…

“Its donor class on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley bankrolled Democratic campaigns and was rewarded with influence in Washington. None of this appealed to the party’s old base.”

—      George Packer, Last Best Hope: American in Crisis and Renewal, reviewed in “Philanthropy in George Packer’s ‘four Americas,’” July 8, 2021

---

This article first appeared in the Giving Review on November 15, 2024.

Source: https://capitalresearch.org/article/recent-books-mostly-by-liberals-or-progressives-presciently-critiquing-progressive-philanthropys-effects/