Send us a text

In this episode we talk to Daniel Stid, Director of Lyceum Labs and former Program Director of U.S. Democracy at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, about philanthropy, pluralism and democracy. Including:

Why has the long-standing consensus on the value of philanthropic pluralism been challenged in recent years?
Is there a danger of being naïve about pluralism, and holding up an ideal that it will result in a dynamic equilibrium where views from all sides are able to be heard, when in reality money and influence skews towards one end of the political spectrum? (If so, which end of the spectrum most benefits?)
Where (if at all) should we draw the boundaries of acceptable pluralism? Is this a matter merely for the state to determine through laws, or are there other criteria that might be relevant?
Is it a mistake to think that acceptance of pluralism means you can’t disagree with anyone?
What are the 5 steps of "responsible pluralism" ?
Is the case for responsible pluralism a pragmatic one (i.e. it is in the best interests to promote pluralism as it will make them more effective at achieving their mission) or a principled one (i.e. civil society pluralism is an inherent good)?
Is polarisation now at unprecedented levels in our society, or has it always been a challenge?
Have we simply forgotten how to “disagree well”?
How has this affected philanthropy?
Has social media made things worse, and if so in what ways?
Is there a danger that those at the extreme ends of the spectrum on any issue shout the loudest, and thus give a false sense of how polarised society is, when in reality the majority of people are either closer to the centre or don’t care?
To what extent is philanthropy to blame for polarisation?
How concerned should US nonprofits be that the incoming Trump administration will crack down on civil society freedoms and seek to delegitimise certain orgs?
Is it a good idea for nonprofits to position themselves as the “Resistance” to Trump? Or could this be counterproductive?
Is there any basis for arguing that electoral democracy has become sufficiently debased that it is justifiable to “act anti-democratically to save democracy” through philanthropy? Or is that a dangerous road to go down?

Related Links

Daniel's Substack "The Art of Association"
Daniel's paper "Taking Democracy for Granted: Philanthropy, Polarization,
and the Need for Responsible Pluralism"
Daniel's Chronicle of Philanthropy op ed "Funding the Resistance Is Not a Winning Strategy. Here’s What Is"
Ben Soskis's paper on the history of US philanthropic pluralism
"Join or Die", documentary about Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone"
Philanthropisms episode on pluralism, and interviews with Amy Schiller and Emma Saunders-Hastings
WPM article series "What's the point o

263 - How to Be Drama Free with Therapist/Author Nedra Glover Tawwab