Even if counting the votes takes too long in some states, elections will, in the end, yield a result. There will be winners, and there will be losers, and we usually have a pretty good idea which will be the battleground states that decide the greater national contest for the White House and Congress. The battle of ideas, by contrast, never pauses, never comes to a resolution, and is fought out on fronts of which we may not even be aware.
During her speech at the 2024 William F. Buckley Jr. Prize Dinner in Chicago, Kim Dennis, president and CEO of the Searle Freedom Trust and a member of the Philanthropy Roundtable's board of directors, referred to the concept of "giving back," a notion she would like to "banish": |
Too many good people think of their charitable efforts as what they like to call "giving back." But "giving back" implies that in creating wealth, you have taken something. When, of course, in generating wealth for yourself you have almost without exception made others better off in the process. You've created jobs, invented products, or provided services that improve people's lives. In fact, you've probably given more by building your business than you ever will through your philanthropy. |
Dennis makes an excellent point. But who was it who first thought of adding the "back" to "giving?" And how did this clever propagandist tweak come into such wide, insufficiently contested usage?
One of the objectives of National Review Institute is to challenge the assumptions that underpin many of today's orthodoxies. This is a process that, by its very nature, must go beyond yelling "Stop" (as important as that is!) and extend into investigating how and why such nonsenses came to be accepted, and in some cases, even enforceable by law. Understanding that will help in their undermining and lessen the danger that they will be replaced by equally noxious successors. Such a search will involve learning how to look, and what to look for. As Bill Buckley would have appreciated, that takes an understanding of what's right as well as what's wrong. |
At National Review Capital Matters we apply these principles to our advocacy of free markets. We start with the basic idea that this must involve explaining how markets work; why they have delivered the extraordinary results that they have; and, something that is too often overlooked, what those results have been. Our advocacy is unapologetic, but not uncritical, a matter of reason, not dogma, in which we recognize that there is plenty of room for debate over what the best "free market" approach should be. We live in the real world, not a classroom, and we also know that there are critiques of free markets from the Right as well as the Left, and we respond to them, civilly, in the Buckley tradition.
The ground we cover, in articles, in person, or in podcasts, or other media, is wide-ranging, from the ideas of Adam Smith to the commercial opportunities now opening up in space.
We don't shy away from the controversies of the day or, indeed, thanks to Amity Shlaes's series The Forgotten Book, the past. We often look for the broader lessons they can teach, about, say, the dangers of price control or, in light of ESG, the importance of shareholder rights.
We make a point of not confining ourselves to the Acela Corridor and pay careful attention to economic initiatives in the states—something that merits much more attention than it typically gets in the media. One of the highlights of my Capital Matters year was speaking at a breakfast meeting—"Bacon + Eggonomics"—organized by Economics Arkansas. The venue was a cinema, built in the 1940s, now renovated and turned into an events space, an example, so to speak, of creative reconstruction.
This work—defending free markets—online, in print, in podcasts, on video, and in person, all over the country is critical today. We are grateful for your support, standing with National Review Institute to defend and educate on free markets.
We live in an era in which the survival of the foundations of the economic system that allowed the U.S. to become the most prosperous country in history cannot be taken for granted. Making the case for preserving and building upon them is central to what we do, and it is only made possible by your generous support.
Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our work today. Your generosity to our cause is both needed and greatly appreciated.
Gratefully,
Andrew Stuttaford
Editor, National Review Capital Matters |
| |
National Review Institute is a non-profit, 501(c)(3), journalistic think tank that preserves and promotes William F. Buckley Jr.'s legacy and advances the principles of a free society through educational and outreach programs. All contributions to it are deductible for income, gift, and estate tax purposes.
EIN# 13-3649537
National Review Institute
19 West 44th Street, Suite 1701 New York, NY 10036
info@nrinstitute.org · 212.849.2806 · www.nrinstitute.org |
|
|
|
Comments
Post a Comment