## Notes from 23 March 2026 [[2026-03-22|← Previous note]] ┃ [[|Next note →]] [[Daniel Stid]] (former [[Hewlett Foundation]] democracy program director, now AEI) argues philanthropists over-optimize for control and measurable outcomes, thereby missing higher-impact investments in networks of emerging leaders. Uses [[Federalist Society]] as case study: in early 1980s it was merely self-organizing law student clubs hosting debates and speakers at handful of schools - no theory of change, no timelines, no deliverables. Yet early funders made what Stid calls "philanthropic gifts" rather than instrumental investments: underwriting space for conservative/libertarian students to connect and debate, with no control over what they'd do afterward. Steve Teles' analysis shows FedSoc's power came from being "producer of social capital in the form of networks" with mission narrowed to "facilitating activism of members and influencing intellectual debate rather than directly influencing government." The key: putting leaders and ideas "in motion" without predetermined paths. Stid identifies three contemporary examples operating similarly: - Civic Science Fellows (connecting research to civic life), - [[Center for Christianity and Public Life Fellowship]] (faith-public service intersection), - Moynihan Center Undergraduate Fellowship (CCNY students into government/policy). Common traits: - (1) grounded in shared values but recognize multiple paths, - (2) select promising leaders determining future directions, - (3) operate as "formative institutions" (Yuval Levin's term) shaping perspectives/aspirations, - (4) provide networked solidarity across cohorts, staff, funders, alumni.