Isn't it galling when people whose conclusions you often detest are so darn intelligent? Isn't it even more aggravating, when their writing is passionate, eloquent and well-informed? Bill Schambra's new piece at Chronicle of Philanthropy is a high-spirited, almost boisterous, critique of old line foundations. Having pummeled his opponents, with what may well prove to be unanswered shots, he ends, somewhat gratuitously, I thought, with a plea for charter schools.
Anyone wanting to see how foundations can move the policy needle might do well to study American Enterprise, Hudson (where Bill works), Bradley (where used to work), Heritage, and other conservative think tanks whose policy experts do well by doing good. (Hunh? Yes, just ask them.) They do well by not only writing public policy papers for legislators, but by getting out and around on tv, and in the public press, as Bill does here, to build awareness of issues (like charter schools) and get the public informed, or persuaded, on behalf of specific policies within a larger horizon of political philosophies. As far as I know, career opportunities for those on the left are few when it comes to being a philanthropy policy expert, or pundit. I do not begrudge Bill his cushy job, nor do I covet it, but I wish he had a peer to the left, someone as well informed and articulate, as iconoclastic, who could, with Bill, maintain a high level of debate and stir up public interest around the intersection of foundations, public policy, and democratic action.
Bill's essay should make steam come out of the ears of many foundation folks. I do hope they come forward with a rebuttal and keep the discussion going. Maybe Rick Cohen of NCRP will weigh in. Too bad that the Chronicle does not have a comment section under the article. I wish Bill would start a blog and post his essays, so others could jump in and comment, but he might find that answering his outraged opponents would be a full time job. In the stuffy world of foundations, Bill deserves some kind of award (maybe a bronzed grenade mounted on walnut) for serving as an an agent provacateur.
Yes, it is galling!
Posted by: Jane King | February 08, 2006 at 12:12 PM
Yes, he is a master at needling well-mannered foundation people. "Let them choke on their own rage" seems to be the strategy. Liberals are lousy at expressing anger. Thank heaven for The Happy Tutor who, liberal or not, delights in inflicting tutelage, welcome or not. Not all liberals in philanthropy are milquetoasts, but we do in general play to that stereoptype. Bill's rhetorical strategies, of superb insults, delivered with a polite smile, can only be met with an equally vigorous attack. Ask him about the public interest, and how Hudson serves it. Ask about their funding. Whose agenda do they serve and why? And how is Scooter Libby doing? We need to start playing some offense, even if it is offensive, or better yet, we need to delight in being constructively offensive as Bill demonstrates with such panache. Polemic, satire, burlesque, carnival: the modes of many and Mr. Schambra would take it in good part, I think. What will not work against a Phd-educated street fighter like Bill is a "reasoned and mild rebuttal" in the style of Dick Minim, and that mildness is all that Bill will get from his opponents, that and offended silence. The liberals will ostracize him but not answer him. Sad, sad, sad. I am rooting for Bill because at least the man comes to play. Only when the liberal foundation people get so angry that they lash out, and thereby make great fools of themselves, will they begin the long road to recovery that goes through the history of English satire.
Posted by: phil | February 08, 2006 at 02:20 PM