The lifestyles of the rich and the famous

In my early days of writing newspaper commentaries, rejections were in plenty.  One of the pieces that never was published was about the Rhodes Scholarship.

Yep, about some obscure scholarship that perhaps even 99% of regular newspaper readers don't know about.  It certainly failed the "will it play in Peoria?" test that editors often employ.

But, to me this was, and continues to be, an important issue that we don't talk about much.  The commentary that I wrote was not merely about the scholarship.  But, the Rhodes Scholarship was the launching point for me to question the value of ill-gotten gains.

Cecil Rhodes did not make his fortunes in any laudable manner.  And, even more worryingly, the guy was a staunch imperialist and a racist, who believed that his people were the greatest race on earth.  His dream was to bring the entire world under British rule.  World domination by his people was his ultimate goal, for which he even devoted money that he had made from other people's misfortunes.

Yet, there is Rhodes Scholarship.  And we celebrate Rhodes Scholars?

I used that launching pad in order to question the value of philanthropy.  (Much later, and in a different context, I wrote this commentary about--pecunia non olet--the stink of money.)

Anand Giridharadas has written a bestseller on this topic, and the recent news reports add more evidence for him:

We have crossed the point beyond which anyone in philanthropy can wiggle out of this problem by talking about some good examples or invoking Bill Gates. Yes. Yes. Yes. There is much good being done. But your tool has become the implement of choice for scoundrels. Face it.

— Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) September 10, 2019

I continue to worry about philanthropy.  Not only because of how the "philanthropists" made their fortunes but for a reason beyond that.  In a democracy, philanthropy tends to terribly undercut the ability of government to address the public interest.  As this review notes, Robert Reich--a Rhodes Scholar himself!--argues in his book that in a democracy, "philanthropy amplifies the power of the few at the expense of the many."

The rich avoid paying taxes, which makes it difficult for government to address real public policy issues like homelessness.  And meanwhile, the rich get tax deductions for their "philanthropy" that is used to pursue their favorite agendas.

The income tax deduction for charitable donations, Reich argues, is effectively a state subsidy for philanthropy. And since tax rates increase progressively on the basis of income, the rich are, in effect, being paid by the government to exert power by giving their money away.

To use Shakespeare's words, "So are they all, all honourable men."