Philanthropic Rhetoric

According to Forbes magazine, of the 793 tycoons with the highest personal assets over one billion dollars, eleven are thought to be incredibly generous.

Bill Gates occupies first place, having donated US$28 billion in his 53 years of life. Gates’ example has inspired other multimillionaires. The roots of American philanthropy can be traced back to Andrew Carnegie and David Rockefeller.

In second place is George Soros, of Hungarian origin, who has donated US$7.2 billion, followed by founder of Intel Gordon Moore with $6.8 billion and Warren Buffet, a friend of Gates, with $6.7 billion. The list continues.

However, Latin American multimillionaires do not participate in this tradition, perhaps due to humility or perhaps because the left hand does not know what the right hand does. Neither do the great political magnates like Hugo Chavez or Daniel Ortega figure in, for obvious reasons. What is Chavez’s personal or family fortune from managing the oil wealth, or even that of his allies, without any control or distribution of petrodollars to the benevolent and the sinister? Imagination is substituted by growing reason to authorize his power and to support an investigation. It is a simple exercise of addition and subtraction.

These philanthropists, according to the vogue ideology of professional vagabonds and cafeteria revolutionaries, incarnate savage neo-liberalist and capitalist ideals and actually do harm by donating part of their goods. Although this attitude promotes reform, it impedes the great revolution and does not uproot poverty. This allows outspoken patriots of social justice, politicians, academics and professionals to wash their conscience with their renowned long-windedness and social constipation.

This matter is measured by detachment. The contribution of the widow, as the Gospel says, costs more than the arrogant publicity of the show-off. In any case, compassion begins with social responsibility by the just and punctual payment of taxes, pensions and salaries. This is the principle.

Here, the national failure is scandalous in two ways: the evasion and absence of compassion. How many professionals offer free services to the poor? How many philanthropic organizations are there in Costa Rica? How many “socialists” practice what they preach?

What are the works and living testimonies of compassion of the rhetoricians of poverty reduction and social justice? How did some of them obtain the means for their current lifestyles? The business of sympathy can be very profitable. It suffices to look and to listen.