New Philanthropists Confound Left and Right

Thoughtful, well-researched article by Howard Husok on  entrepreneurial philanthropy for, well, the deserving poor.  Rather than helping those most in need the thought is to help those who help themselves as best they can. Rather than social change as the goal, or justice, the hope is to incentivize and assist self-reliance, while recognizing that those who have been left behind deserve a fair chance. While the article tries to create a certain polemical edge by suggesting that the new philanthropy flies in the face of established liberal traditions, or "old philanthropy," good programs that work as ventures should be considered a pretty non-controversial good thing in themselves. What you are left with are the undeserving, demoralized, indigent, or handicapped poor, those from whom no venture will turn a profit. Now with sacredness of human life agreed upon by all concerned what will we do with those who are well and truly broken? Let them die in the streets as an example to the others? But what of the smell and disruption of pedestrian traffic? Have the undeserving dig their own mass graves? What?

Comments

[Rob Johnston]

Maybe you are right that Husock is addressing the "deserving poor." I posted about his study as a Confusion of Ends and Means when it comes to helping people and creating social change.

[Phil]

I read and enjoyed your post. I agree with you that earned revenue and good management should not necessarily be associated with any particular political slant. Wouldn't Husock himself agree? I got the impression that he had good things to say about the business approach to social ventures and was groping to find an "opponent" in the old Filer report. But, still, he did not address the plight of those least able to produce or consume. Once ventures have done all they can, there will be a residue of the aged, infirm, and broken for whom family, charity or transfer payments are about the only answer.

[Rob Johnston]

Given how much territory Husock covered, examples shown, and names called, I don't think his message was very clear. I certainly hope he'd agree with you that there has to be a place to turn, a source of comfort for those unable to pull themselves up. You raise the more interesting point -- that the best we will obtain is some balance between the finely structured "philanthropy" where we enable people to find their way and improve their own lot, and the essential "charity" where we provide food and shelter (and medical care) for those otherwise unable to participate.

I thought Husock was only looking for a way to poke the Left and what he sees as its retreat from techniques used 30 years ago.

[Phil]

Yes, still, the essay does make a case for common pragmatic ground. He looks hard to find an adversary. At least he didn't take John Rawls's Theory of Justice to task, or the Gospels.