Their is nothing wrong with being wealthy, and there's certainly nothing wrong with being philanthropically wealthy. However, do super-wealthy people understand the subtle arrogance of their often public philanthropy?
I thought about this last week, while browsing a local quarterly magazine that markets to the affluent of central Iowa. Among the advertisements for custom home builders, art stores, fine dining, and spas, there are socialite pictures of the Des Moines hoi-polloi attending various charity galas and award ceremonies.
It's undoubtedly true that many of these folks have donated big amounts of time and money to charities and other civic causes. They are to be commended for that. Apparently, they feel the same way, because the pictures in the magazine show many of the same folks at every one of the these formal affairs.
The circle goes something like this: An very wealthy executive is named to a charitable or civic board, and after a while they are honored for their service (read: money), for which they get an award at a formal ceremony, at which another wealthy executive there rotates up to replace them on the board, and the cycle begins anew.
Over a long enough period of time, these wealthy civic socialites end up giving awards to each other for their meritorious service. It must be tough giving an acceptance speech when you've heard them all before.
I admire wealthy people who are genuinely philanthropic, and I suppose there's no reason to begrudge someone willing to be an award-winning figurehead from which more money can be raised. For some, however, there is clearly an attention-seeking aspect to it all.
It's a little bit like adults seeking to be the king or the queen of the prom. Isn't it enough just to be a part of it?
No comments:
Post a Comment