Anand Giridharadas

The truth cascades from each page: the "WorldMarket" global elites - Clintons, TED people, social media CEOS, etc - all believe that they can be great philanthropists while denying the need for the rigged system to be overthrown. You can coax big bucks out of them by exhorting them to donate to a hospital in Uganda, but be sure to avoid reminding them that exploitation by Big Pharma is why medicine is unaffordable throughout the world. The author takes us back to Reagan's pronouncements show more about government being the problem, and reminds us that every administration since has allowed corporations to drive (or stall) any attempts at improving lives, including the destruction of unions, if there is going to be even the smallest impact on their bottom lines. Brilliantly told, with examples of well-meaning "thought leaders" who sold out and are laughing all the way to the banks and to Davos. show less

This book was a real eye-opener for me. It helped me to understand why I was always vaguely uncomfortable with elites helping the disadvantaged. It is because they are offering the equivalent of "band-aid" solutions without addressing the underlying causes of inequality, poverty or discrimination. They are, in effect, protecting the status quo and their privileged position within it.

The other insight I gained was that when powerful, market-based elites step in, they are crowding government show more out. They want to avoid regulations that could hurt their businesses, so they provide "solutions" such as apps to average out fluctuating wages hoping to avoid labour laws that would provide employees with more stable hours of work. Governments are accountable to citizens; corporations are not. As a society, we need to work through our democratic institutions, not undermine them.

As the author points out, not every philanthropist is evil; they may not think too hard about what they are doing. In their minds, they work hard. They donate millions. They are good people. Sadly, I fear, this will only make bringing about change more difficult. But not impossible.

A critically important book! Well written in an engaging style. show less

For a book with the name The Persuaders, it’s ironic that the individuals the author chose to cover do not seem to be particularly persuasive (with a few exceptions), even for someone like me who is otherwise sympathetic to most of the arguments and causes found in the book. While it wouldn’t be surprising to read a negative review from a conservative—someone who, unlike me, doesn’t believe in cosmopolitanism, feminism, and the value and importance of diversity—it may be somewhat show more unexpected to read a critique from the other side of the political spectrum. But let me try to explain why I found the first two chapters of this book to be so off-putting (to be fair, I stopped reading after chapter 3, so it’s possible that the book gets better).

The problem, as I see it, with many of the activists covered in the first two chapters is a fundamental tendency towards arrogance and dogma, combined with a sense of moral superiority and aggressive and divisive hostility that, rather than being persuasive, likely drives people away from causes they might otherwise support.

The political activist Linda Sarsour, for example, while pursuing worthwhile and admirable work, especially for Muslim women, can’t manage to get a sentence out without mentioning “white people” as some ignorant and racist monolithic group that is in desperate need of awakening (she also had to step down from the Women’s March over allegations of antisemitism). This is, of course, both incorrect and fundamentally unpersuasive. Not everyone is racist; claiming otherwise seeks only to alienate the people who are already on your side—and already support things like affirmative action and structural reform—which is the polar opposite of persuasion. (Also see Jesse Singal’s book The Quick Fix for an in-depth discussion of the reasons why “implicit bias” is mostly pseudoscience.)

Second, the tendency to focus on groups of people—based on superficial physical characteristics—fosters the very divisiveness the activist is trying to combat. One should be judged, not by the darkness (or whiteness) of their skin, but by their stated values and actions. The well-known quote by Martin Luther King Jr. is worth repeating: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Is it not then hypocritical to judge others by physical characteristics when your stated mission is combating this very tendency?

The bottom line is that the promotion of cosmopolitanism and equality—and even the assistance of those who have been historically discriminated against—does not require the demonization of some other “outgroup.”

It’s also worth keeping in mind that, if these activists seem distasteful to someone who is already in favor of most policies that seek to help minorities, the poor, and the working class, then how much success do you think they’ll have with those who lean more to the right?

What you have here, then, is a master class in dissuasion. Here’s a good playbook to follow if you want to convert as few people as possible to your cause: Tell every white person, regardless of what they believe, say, or do—and based on pseudo-scientific research—that they are ignorant and racist; tell them that you can enlighten them if they are willing to admit their moral inferiority and sin; and then tell them that one day, if they try really hard, they can become morally perfect like you.

And we wonder why so many people flock to the right. show less

Ooph, This was heavy reading.
A true story of the racism & xenophobia the average Southerner and Red State resident experiences regularly after 9-11, and the wondrous grace of forgiveness. Early on, it makes you question where your sympathies should lie. I live surrounded by people who think akin to Mark Stroman, though certainly not as obviously hateful or inclined to hurt - so it's possible to humanize him. I felt uncomfortable admitting that I was capable of empathizing with him, and show more wondered why the author chose to allow us to not dismiss him as merely a horrible criminal. Then it all came together in the end.
Obviously Raisuddin Bhuiyan is the true hero of the story - Someone all Americans can learn a very big moral & spiritual lesson from. He is absolutely inspirational.
I thought the early chapters were a bit tedious to get through (once again, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was the point the author was trying to make) but midway through everything comes together so wonderfully. show less