strategic philanthropy

Donors privileged over the democratic electorate.

Seeming to despair of creating anything of lasting value from philanthropy understood as a free-standing activity—and shifting to what turns out to be little more than another Democratic Party get-out-the vote effort, of the sort already very much in evidence in today’s political philanthropy.

The short of it: in his new book’s ambitious thinking about the “full scale of human history,” William MacAskill undervalues the past—by definition, but more than needed—and elides in practice what that thinking could perhaps offer those of a different ideological worldview.

Into an existing “philanthropic ecosystem” about which they should be wary.

The arcane, demanding jargon of strategic philanthropy is being replaced by an equally arcane, demanding jargon of social justice.

Why did Candid so suddenly shrink in horror from one of the central premises of Big Philanthropy?

What may become a common way of “contracting out” the role of ensuring steadfast adherence to the will of the donor.

George Soros’ new book notes “pitfalls and paradoxes” of philanthropy in ways that seem quite familiar.

And another option for grantmakers to at least consider.

If we’re moving from an “information age” to a “reputation age,” what are the implications for funding public discourse?

We’re in the midst one of the most-drastic changes in the flow of information in history. Policy-oriented funders need to change their strategies accordingly.

As the current Brewers owner says, “Teams can go in two directions” when major setbacks happen.

We have been here before: a debate about capitalism between clerics and capitalists occurred during preparation of a bishops’ pastoral letter on the economy in America almost four decades ago. The lay letter on the economy warrants serious re-examination, given the new debates into which its concepts should be re-introduced.

And philanthropy.

The Syracuse University professor and former Kauffman Foundation president talks about business plans and entrepreneurship, including philanthropic efforts to support it, with Michael E. Hartmann.

The civil-rights and parent-choice activist talks to Daniel P. Schmidt and Michael E. Hartmann about philanthropy, education reform, and the principles driving his work.

Too tidy and convenient an explanation for today’s conservative policy activism.

“Let’s you and him fight.”

Liberally educated generalists with range, rather than narrowly focused specialists with technical expertise and sometimes-overbearing confidence.

And for conservative philanthropy, a small measure of comfort.

In Milwaukee, it didn’t start with any grantmaker. The indispensable groundwork was laid by parents concerned about the education of their children.

Searching for isolated, but incredibly powerful voices of authentic experience with utopian progressivism, who can speak about its excesses with an authority that scholars and activists don’t possess.

It may sometimes be a good idea for policy-oriented givers to consider supporting those on the other side of an otherwise-overarching ideological divide or with another worldview.