On a Less Cynical Note

Steve Clemons also blogs:

There are 1300 Clinton Global Initiative members here today. Each has paid more than $15,000 just to get in the door -- which is only the beginning of other substantial financial "do good" projects a member must commit to.

So far, there have been more than 600 commitments made at previous CGI meetings -- and now, the Clinton Global Initiative has launched a new site for people not at this meeting to propose and declare their commitments. The site is called MyCommitment.org. Interesting idea actually. Inspirational for those looking to feel connected to a larger network of socially concerned people and groups.

Now, obviously, despite my somewhat jaundiced views about charity as an approach to tackling big issues, this is a good thing. And, indeed, it seems to me that it's an especially good thing in that the "commitments" go beyond the merely financial. One of the best things about engagement in charitable activities -- especially if it's real engagement rather than mere check-writing -- is that it can get people emotionally invested in the issues they're working on which can, over time, help broaden perspectives and get people more involved with the need for systemic remedies. In principle, there's a possibility for conflict between allocating resources toward charitable giving and toward political advocacy, but in practice I'm not sure that conflict really arises -- if you build social capital and a sense of engagement, you tend to get both.

Comments

Enough of that social capital garbage, as long as they CTC ('cut-the-check'). Might be better if some of these people spent less time lobbying for dereguatation, lower taxes, and free trade agreements that are anything but. But why should I, or poor people, care if the elites are "socially engaged" or if they aren't bowling alone, as long as the capital is flowing.

Posted by David B. | September 26, 2007 11:14 AM

Its just too bad that innocuous phrase, "...get people more involved with the need for systemic remedies." Systematic means government control. *you can hear the sound of another individual freedom dropping into the bottomless pit of 'good intentions'*

Posted by beneficial | September 26, 2007 11:20 AM

There's still a question of scale, right? I mean, the estimates are that providing safe drinking water to the world or eradicating malaria or curtailing greenhouse gas emissions cost huge amounts of money ... global warming is the most expensive at probably 2-3% of global GDP. 1% of global GDP is an annual commitment of $1.3T. The combined wealth ... not earnings, wealth ... of the Forbes world 400 barely reaches that figure.

I think if the Forbes 400 put their minds to it, they could tackle safe drinking water, which doesn't cost too much ($50B total? $50B annually for some number of years), and maybe malaria, but do little more than dent global warming or global poverty.

That said, the CGI and others do have a point that the various do-gooder bureaucracies ... USAID and especially the UN ... seem to have an awful lot of bureaucratic hurdles and tend to react very slowly (see the TED talk on designing low-cost shelters for relief efforts).

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 26, 2007 11:22 AM

There's still a question of scale, right? I mean, the estimates are that providing safe drinking water to the world or eradicating malaria or curtailing greenhouse gas emissions cost huge amounts of money ... global warming is the most expensive at probably 2-3% of global GDP. 1% of global GDP is an annual commitment of $1.3T. The combined wealth ... not earnings, wealth ... of the Forbes world 400 barely reaches that figure.

I think if the Forbes 400 put their minds to it, they could tackle safe drinking water, which doesn't cost too much ($50B total? $50B annually for some number of years), and maybe malaria, but do little more than dent global warming or global poverty.

That said, the CGI and others do have a point that the various do-gooder bureaucracies ... USAID and especially the UN ... seem to have an awful lot of bureaucratic hurdles and tend to react very slowly (see the TED talk on designing low-cost shelters for relief efforts).

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 26, 2007 11:23 AM

Again, to the extent the wealthy may become "engaged" and invested in these issues, that doesn't necessarily translate into the allocation of resources from the proper forum - government. Hell, their involvement - even to the extent that they become invested emotionally - in these issues may simply *confirm* that it is something charity rather than government can take on.

Posted by McKingford | September 26, 2007 12:12 PM

The superrich never screw you 100 percent -- only 98%. They then make some token gesture that they can point to so they can argue that they aren't really all that malign.

Kinda like the wife-beating sadistic husband who tells his battered wife -- "Honey, I love you. Why do you make me do this? Why can't you just do what i tell you?"

Of course, such cheap gestures don't alter the fact that the wife should cut his goddamm throat just as soon as he falls asleep.

Posted by Don Williams | September 26, 2007 12:45 PM

The purpose of the Clinton Global Initiative is to sell shares of various progressive causes to the world's leading moneybags. With governing shares in the climate change movement, for example, the fat cats will be able to make sure that these movements don't grow too progressive for their tastes.

So get prepared for Climate Change Initiative 2.0: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Economic Opportunities Opened Up by Melting Ice Sheets.

Clinton and Wife are the same as they ever were: two bright and ambitious upstarts on the make, dazzled by wealth, still climbing the ladder.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 27, 2007 1:48 AM