Foundations Attack Tough Problems

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

To the Editor:

The article by Pablo Eisenberg (“The Gates-Buffett Merger Isn’t Good for Philanthropy,” July 20) is baffling: The author has either a very short memory or a poor filing system, or both, when he accuses foundations of not tackling thorny and controversial subjects.

What about George Soros, who has spent hundreds of millions to open the communication channels necessary for a civil society, to the consternation of oligarchies in Russia, among other countries?

Does Mr. Eisenberg not remember that the Ford Foundation sponsored long secret talks in Oslo concerning the Palestinian-Israeli situation, which led to the Oslo Accords, bypassing regular diplomatic channels much to the chagrin of the “professional diplomats”?

Or that Pew transformed itself into (in part) a universal and independent and (one would hope) unbiased polling service, thus allowing the individual citizen to have a better idea of what is going on?

Or that the Rockefeller Foundation funded (and largely directed) the agricultural research that led to the Green Revolution in India (allowing India in just three decades to exchange grain for arms with the Soviet Union)?

Admittedly most of my examples are international, since that is my specialty.

Given that well over 90 percent of American foundation grants stay within the United States, similar examples can be found for domestic programs.

Mr. Eisenberg’s point that what makes for a successful entrepreneur does not necessarily make for a successful philanthropist could be interesting if it had not been addressed 160 years ago by Alexis de Tocqueville: The genius of American philanthropy lies in its diversity, with every philosophy or approach to larger problems possible.

There was no national authority to tell Andrew Carnegie that every town should have a free public library.

Perhaps Mr. Eisenberg would prefer the French system.

If Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett had been in France, they would have submitted a lengthy application to the government, first to the Ministry of Interior. That ministry would examine it to ensure that the stated objectives of the proposed foundation corresponded with the “national good,” as defined by the government.

If the proposed field of interest of the proposed foundation lay principally in foreign matters and in health, then the application would be passed on to the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of Health, to ensure that the proposed activities would not undermine the national interest in any way.

Finally the application would go to the Ministry of Finance to ensure that there was nothing untoward about the finances of either the proposed foundation or its donors.

When all these steps had been successfully covered, the application would then go to the Council of State for final approval.

The foundation could then be formed, with at least 40 percent of the board members coming from the concerned ministries (interior, foreign affairs, health, and finance), as an assurance that the foundation would support the national interest.

Is this what Mr. Eisenberg has in mind?

But we need not argue over the French example, for the French system has not produced a Gates or a Buffett, or a Rockefeller or a Ford or a Carnegie, for that matter, since before World War I.

Thomas Harris
Principal
Harris Philanthropic
Annapolis and Paris