## Notes from 08 April 2026 [[2026-04-07|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-04-09|Next note →]] ### "[The Decline of the Republic—and Philanthropy's Role in It](https://artofassociation.substack.com/p/the-decline-of-the-republicand-philanthropys)" by [[Daniel Stid]] _[The Art of Association](https://artofassociation.substack.com/)_ (Substack), Feb 17, 2026. Part 2 of a series on republican government and civil society in the US. Stid has produced some of the most insightful writing on the relationship between philanthropy and democratic institutions and civic culture. He views philanthropy not as charity, but as a political actor with responsibilities toward the constitutional order within which it operates. #### The argument In this excellent piece, Stid points out that large national philanthropic funders in the U.S. routinely underwrite advocacy organizations that pursue maximalist policy outcomes, favor speed over coalition building, and default to unilateral executive action over the slow legislative work of assembling durable majorities. This creates a cycle of fragile "wins" that are reversed by the next administration, which deepens polarization and erodes confidence in self-government. Stid illustrates this point by examining the whiplash of immigration policy from Obama to Trump to Biden to Trump, with each president governing by executive action and each reversal being more extreme than the last. The key point is that these advocacy groups function as conflict entrepreneurs, skilled at mobilizing polarized bases and attracting funding through escalation. However, they are structurally incapable of producing durable settlements. Compromise is framed as capitulation. #### The policy / politics / polity distinction The most important insight, which Stid gestures at without fully formalizing: there is a difference between - _policy_ (the substantive outcomes organizations pursue), - _politics_ (the strategies and tactics they use to achieve those outcomes), and - _polity_ (the institutional rules and civic culture that make the game possible at all). The problem is that philanthropies and their grantees are intensely focused on policy, instrumentally aggressive in their politics, and essentially indifferent to the effects of their political behavior on the health of the polity. Everyone laments the erosion of institutional legitimacy, but almost no one adjusts how they play the game to protect the rules of the game. The costs of polarization and institutional decay are externalized — borne by the republic, not by the actors whose strategies accelerate it. #### Responsible pluralism Stid's proposed corrective, which he calls "responsible pluralism," rests on a simple distinction: there is a difference between _winning_ and _governing_. The philanthropic sector has overwhelmingly optimized for winning — faster cycles, sharper messaging, executive shortcuts — while the capacity to govern requires precisely the opposite: patience, accommodation, and the willingness to accept partial outcomes. The deeper claim is that civic virtues like restraint, forbearance, and conciliation are not self-sustaining features of a republic. They are habits that need to be actively cultivated — and that philanthropy, in its current mode, is actively eroding. When funders treat democratic stability as a background condition they can take for granted while pursuing their policy goals, they free-ride on a system they are helping to degrade. What would it look like to take this seriously? Stid suggests: accepting partial victories as legitimate outcomes rather than signs of failure; building coalitions that reconcile real differences rather than mobilizing ideological blocs; resisting monocultures within philanthropic networks; and measuring success over decades, not election cycles. None of this requires abandoning substantive commitments. It requires recognizing that the way you pursue them shapes the system within which everyone else has to pursue theirs. ___ **PS:** The language Stid uses (civic virtue, service, restraint, the active nurturing of democratic habits) reminds me of some posts by [[Ben Bain]] ([[Niskanen Center]]) about [[More Perfect Union (MPU)]], a civic organization. MPU runs local chapters ("Brickyards") that bring strangers together for service projects, potlucks, and civic engagement — essentially trying to _build_ the civic culture that Stid argues philanthropy is eroding.