First, Do No Harm! Five Steps All Funders Should Take to Bolster Liberal Democracy
Defending philanthropic freedom is not enough. Philanthropy also needs to do its part in supporting democracy in America. It can start by not messing it up. (1,125 words / ~5 minute read).
Big philanthropy currently faces two challenges. Even as it rallies to ward off a looming external threat to its freedom from the Trump Administration, it must also tackle an even more daunting internal challenge – reforming itself. I’ll have more to say on the former challenge next week. Below, I take up the task of internal reform.
This newsletter reprises a post just published as part of NYU Law’s Democracy Project. As its leaders Bob Bauer, Rick Pildes, and Sam Isaacharoff observe, “dissatisfaction with democratic government has been pervasive for the last decade throughout the West. We’re launching [the Project] to engage this challenge along many dimensions and from diverse ideological perspectives.”
Toward this end, the Project is publishing “100 ideas in 100 days” to strengthen democracy. It is an impressive endeavor; I am honored and grateful to have been included. At the end of this newsletter, I link to seven of the ideas shared by others that I have found especially illuminating and bracing thus far.
In the meantime, my post traces how philanthropy has contributed—in some cases inadvertently, in others quite intentionally—to problems afflicting democracy in America. It then lays out five steps funders can take to help remedy them.
Philanthropy and the Tragedy of the Commons in Our Public Life
Many philanthropists, be they foundation-based or individual grant makers, are committed to defending democracy in America amid its present peril. Over the past decade, these donors have spent billions to bolster and/or reform the institutions and processes of democracy.
However, democracy-focused philanthropy is but a small fraction of the giving meant to shape what government does and how it does it. Across a range of issues — e.g., criminal justice, education, the environment, immigration, political economy, racial justice, etc. — philanthropy underwrites efforts to influence public policy. Unfortunately, it does so in ways that have come to accelerate polarization and produce a multi-faceted tragedy of the commons in our public life.
By funding uncompromising advocates and activists, philanthropists on both the left and right weaken the ability of our political parties to build the broad and stable majorities capable of governing a diverse and continental republic. While most Americans’ views cluster around the political center, on issue after issue, philanthropy funds pressure groups that tether our parties to the extremes.
This is self-defeating in three ways. First, funders’ preferred policies falter as the parties proximate to their side of the political spectrum struggle to build the majority coalitions needed to enact and sustain them. Second, democracy itself suffers: polarization erodes trust, with 85% of Americans feeling ignored by leaders—a stark indicator of democratic decay and de-legitimation. Third, philanthropy’s own legitimacy is at risk. The more funders are seen to act as “shadow partisans,” the louder the calls to restrict the freedoms our democracy affords them.
Toward Responsible Pluralism
I lay out a better path for philanthropy in a recent report for the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University entitled “Taking Democracy for Granted: Philanthropy, Polarization, and the Need for Responsible Pluralism.” It proposes that philanthropists have a stake in the health of the liberal democracy in which they operate; they bear no small responsibility for its legitimacy and sustainability. This responsibility cannot be discharged, as some foundation leaders recently argued, simply through funders’ “unfettered pursuit” of their own agendas. Indeed, that so many philanthropists are already doing this has led to the tragedy of the commons described above.
Rather, philanthropists must understand they are responsible for the health of the polity in two related but distinct meanings of the word. First, philanthropists must think and behave as responsible stewards. They have an obligation to preserve and enhance the institutions and culture of democracy in America, even as they use them to advance their goals. Second, citizens, associations, journalists, watchdogs, and other actors in civil society can and should hold philanthropists responsible for the impact they are having on liberal democracy and civic life. Practicing responsible pluralism is thus a way for philanthropists to meet their obligations and ensure their actions hold up under the appropriate democratic scrutiny.
As with Spider-Man, so too with philanthropy in a liberal democracy: With great power comes great responsibility.
Five Steps All Funders Can Take
To be clear, responsible pluralism ultimately depends not on what specific causes philanthropic funders support but rather on how they support them. Regardless of their focus, all funders who seek to do their part in preserving democracy in America can and should take five steps:
1) Admit There is a Problem. This first step is the most important. Philanthropists must acknowledge their responsibility for the health of democracy. They cannot externalize the costs of funding uncompromising advocacy and activism. Individual donors and foundation boards and presidents must exercise leadership in recognizing and responding to this obligation in ways that bolster rather than undermine pluralism.
2) Practice Pluralism from the Inside Out. Funders need to expand the viewpoints informing their grant making. Instead of the current monocultures, they should cultivate political and ideological biodiversity in the circles of people informing their decisions. This means recruiting staff and advisers who bring different perspectives to bear. It also means welcoming dissent and engaging with good-faith skeptics – i.e., potential coalition partners.
3) Build Expansive and Varied Coalitions. Philanthropists must also seek to engage a more diverse mix of grantees and co-funders. Such inclusive coalitions reduce the risks of blind spots and belief polarization that are pervasive in homogenous groups. Moreover, in the extended sphere of Madison’s republic, the goal is not to get 50% plus one, but rather to build expansive and enduring majorities so that policy settlements can be enacted and sustained.
4) Grant the Initiative Alongside Funding. Beyond funding, grantees benefit from leeway to pursue their various strategies as they – not the funder – sees fit. When philanthropists set and control the courses of action their grantees pursue, they impose a uniformity of thought across their networks. Distributed leadership and initiative are not only good for grantees; they allow pluralism and new coalitions to develop and flourish.
5) Think in Decades, Not Years. Philanthropic funders consistently overestimate the impact they can have in 1-2 years and underestimate what they can accomplish in 1-2 decades. It takes time to build super-majority coalitions. There are more differences to reconcile. Also, by thinking in terms of decades, philanthropic funders can avoid the constant temptation of trying to force change within the narrow and partisan confines of an electoral cycle.
These five steps do not require philanthropists to devote more resources to supporting democracy directly. But unless and until a critical mass of funders take these steps, any portion of their philanthropy that they do dedicate to protecting democracy itself will face an uphill battle.
Other fresh posts in the NYU Law Democracy Project’s “100 Ideas in 100 Days” that members of The Art of Association community might benefit from reading (and perhaps grappling and disagreeing with, as I do in some instances) include:
Randy E. Barnett, “What is ‘Democracy?’”
Robert P. George, “Family as the Foundation of Republican Democracy.”
Jack Goldsmith, “Nonsense and Sense about Supreme Court Interim Orders.”
Turkuler Isiksel, “Civil Society Institutions Under Authoritarian Encroachment.”
Randall Kennedy, “NOT ‘By All Means Necessary.’”
Frances E. Lee, “Experts, Trust, and Uncertainty.”
Eboo Patel and Rollie Olson, “The Bear, Tocqueville, and Institutions that Work.”
Please enlighten me on the harm philanthropic lefties are doing/supporting.