Foundation Critique Was Overstated and Contradictory

To the Editor:

Matthew Miller praises conservative foundations for making strategic investments in policy ideas and action-oriented think tanks, and he wonders why center-left foundations don’t do likewise (“A Challenge for Liberal Foundations,” My View, September 18). He concludes that mainstream funders have no sense of mission or appreciation of ideas, are mired in support for empirical research and service delivery, and lack marketing savvy. Mr. Miller’s assessment of failure is so sweeping one wonders why he even bothers to call mainstream foundations and their grant recipients liberal.

But is the foundation world really so conservative? Or has Mr. Miller overstated his argument to wring more dollars for his preferred policy objectives from already-defensive grant makers? Mr. Miller says the big foundations and nonprofits must “cooperate in new ways, and . . . emphasize macro questions of taxation and spending in ways that haven’t been their focus.” But earlier he acknowledges that foundation philanthropy is steeped in the Progressive tradition: It touts government regulatory processes as the way to solve perceived market-based social failings measured by scientific research. Pew, Soros, Mott, Ford, MacArthur — they’ve spent billions over decades on exactly this method of addressing poverty, education, health, the environment, and international security.

If the public is losing interest in this approach to problem solving, perhaps the problem lies with the model, not with how much money foundations devote to it.

Robert Huberty
Executive Vice President
Capital Research Center
Washington