John O. McGinnis, a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and former deputy assistant attorney general, discussed his recent book ‘Why Democracy Needs the Rich’ in an interview published on Mar. 17. In the conversation, McGinnis argued that wealthy individuals play a crucial role in supporting and strengthening democratic systems, countering the common belief that they undermine democracy.
McGinnis said that wealth is not opposed to democracy but instead acts as a catalyst for it. He stated, “Wealth is not democracy’s rival, but one of its catalysts: the reserve of independence that checks conformity, the counterweight that steadies the scale against rival elites, the reservoir that funds excellence, and the restless engine that helps renew liberal democracy, generation after generation.” He also pointed to philanthropy by wealthy individuals as an example of how their resources can benefit society.
During the interview, McGinnis addressed concerns about influence within democratic systems. He said, “One that’s important is that they serve as a counterweight to other people with more influence. A premise of my book is that not everyone has equal influence in democracy, in a representative democracy,” adding it is impossible to ensure equal influence for all participants. He questioned whether there is true pluralism of views and perspectives and suggested that wealthy individuals are among the few groups able to provide such diversity due to their independence and resources.
McGinnis also discussed historical context by referencing intellectual elites known as “the clerisy,” noting their origins date back to Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s time. He said these groups are independent from wealthy donors: “I think they’re quite independent of the wealthy. I think their views are also quite independent of the wealthy.” While acknowledging philanthropy may provide additional resources for such groups or institutions like Harvard University, he argued these entities would remain influential regardless.
The conversation touched on reforms targeting philanthropy and nonprofit sectors. McGinnis questioned whether restricting tax deductions for philanthropy would benefit democracy overall: “If we clamp down on the rich—if our view is that…to allow tax deductions for philanthropy—would this, on net, be good for democracy? I think not.” He concluded by emphasizing balance between different sources of influence: “We can’t give the government the power to make those decisions because that would be…worse than the disease.” According to McGinnis, allowing wealthy individuals to fund public goods independently from government approval provides advantages for society.
