Toon alles (1)

‘Shutdown’ VS is testcase voor filantro-kapitalisten

17 oktober 2013, 04:00
‘Shutdown’ VS is testcase voor filantro-kapitalisten
‘Shutdown’ VS is testcase voor filantro-kapitalisten
De recente ‘shutdown’ in Amerika is volgens het progressieve blad The Nation een mooie testcase voor de Amerikaanse filantropie. De gaten die de overheid nu laat vallen, worden deels opgevuld door miljardairs-megafilantropen die hun private kapitaal inzetten om invloed uit te oefenen op de politiek: links-, maar ook rechtsom.

The Nation beschrijft een relatief kleine gift van tien miljoen dollar van het miljardairsechtpaar John en Laura Arnold om een overheidsprogramma voor voorschoolse opvang door te laten gaan. Een nobel gebaar, aldus het tijdschrift, maar ook een vingerwijzing voor de toekomst van Republikeins getinte filantropie die erop uit is om zeer selectief overheidsfinanciering te vervangen. ‘Grote schaal-filantropie’ is volgens The Nation een onderschatte speler in de aanloop naar de shutdown zelf: de erosie en het verlies aan vertrouwen in overheidsinstituties. Met name op het gebied van onderwijs worden Republikeinse filantropen een politieke macht.

Lees nu de belangrijkste passages uit het artikel van Amy Schiller in The Nation:

Can Billionaire Philanthropists Replace the Federal Government?

When the clock ran down on congressional negotiations and the federal government shut down on October 1, preschoolers across the country were locked out of their Head Start centers. But then, Laura and John Arnold, a billionaire couple from Houston, made a personal gift of $10 million to Head Start. The Arnolds, with an estimated net worth of $2.8 billion, amassed their fortune before either spouse turned 40, through careers in the oil industry, particularly John’s energy trading hedge fund, Centaurus Advisors.

Coverage of their gift has typically been celebratory, and any criticism of the circumstances surrounding the gift was directed at the shutdown as the precipitating factor. The Atlantic’s Eleanor Barkhorn lamented, “It’s bad news when the government is in such disarray that it needs… money from a billionaire to keep providing services to the country’s neediest,” before concluding, “The money will keep thousands of children in safe and familiar surroundings. That’s good news.”

Putting low-income children back in the classroom—thereby enabling their parents to go back to work—is a positive outcome. But it is no accident that the 7,195 children whose Head Start programs lost funding, and their families, are dependent on the Arnolds’ largesse to keep their lives running normally. The shutdown has created the perfect testing ground for wealthy benefactors to fill the gaps left by an absent federal government. In this way, the shutdown and Arnolds’ emergency philanthropy provides a snapshot of the very future toward which House Republicans, pressured by the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, and others, are attempting to steer the country.

The Arnolds’ public announcement of their gift was a refreshingly humble statement about the relationship between philanthropy and government: “We sincerely hope that our government gets back to work in short order, as private dollars cannot in the long term replace government commitments.” If the aim of the Tea Party’s shutdown stalemate is to strip America of its social safety net, it appears instead to have proven that even those who stand to benefit economically from a limited government and lower taxes find it in their interests to maintain government programs.

But there’s a bigger story about philanthropy stepping in to plug holes left by the government. Philanthropy is an under-recognized player in the trends that led to the shutdown in the first place: erosion of legitimacy and trust in public institutions, just as mega philanthropy became an ascendant political force. Though philanthropy is generally associated with symphonies, elite colleges, and hospital wings, the trend in recent years has moved away from more ornamental causes to ones that interfere more aggressively with core public institutions. The most visible example is the widely-criticized efforts by the Broad, Walton and Gates foundations in relentlessly pursuing disruptive, top-down corporate education reform.

Compared to the billions spent on influencing public education reform, the Arnold’s $10 million gift to maintain an existing social program is almost quaint, both in terms of size and in terms of ambition for control (or in this case, lack thereof). According to Chrystia Freeland in her 2012 book Plutocrats.

Arguably the most coveted status symbol isn’t a yacht, a racehorse, or knighthood; it’s a philanthropic foundation…one actively managed in ways that show its sponsor has big ideas for reshaping the world…. the ambition of the philanthro-capitalists doesn’t stop at transforming how charity works. They want to change how the state operates, too…

The futile standoff over the Affordable Care Act is undergirded by a fantasy of a world in which the government’s power is vastly reduced and private citizens step into the breach with better, more innovative ideas for solving social challenges. Rob Reich, a political theorist at Stanford, has researched how philanthropists have become increasingly political, not just in terms of what institutions they fund but in their ideology about the private sector’s qualifications to solve social problems. “A democratic society is committed, at least in principle, to the equality of citizens, but foundations are the voice of plutocracy,” Reich wrote for Boston Review.

That voice is growing louder, as we might expect during this era of inequality. According to Joanne Barkan’s recent reporting for Dissent,

[Big] philanthropy in the United States is booming…. In September 2013 there were sixty-seven private grant-making foundations with assets over $1 billion… Mega-foundations are more powerful now than in the twentieth century—not only because of their greater number, but also because of the context in which they operate: dwindling government resources for public goods and services, [and] the drive to privatize what remains of the public sector…

It’s one thing to fund poor children’s early education, particularly during an emergency. Unfortunately, for the Arnolds this seems to be a fleeting moment of self-awareness that, for all their wealth, they are part of a larger community that requires a major central government to properly care for all its citizens. Otherwise, it’s back to aggressively undermining the legitimacy of public employees and institutions, because billionaires know best. They certainly have quite the head start of their own.
gerelateerde items