thegivingreview.com/a-conver… In 1st part of 2-part conversation, @NorthwesternLaw professor and Why Democracy Needs the Rich author @joldmcginn talks to @GivingReview’s @mhartmannke about the “clerisy” and how to think about the relationship of the wealthy and their philanthropy to it … The book presents a “variety of arguments about what the rich do for democracy, why they’re a positive effect on democracy, unlike what many people think,” according to McGinnis. “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,” and it’s “impossible to make sure that they have equal influence. “The real question is, Do we have a pluralism of views and perspectives?” he asks. “The rich do have that pluralism, and they are one of the few groups—because of their independence and resources—that can counter what I call professional influencers ,who obviously have a lot more influence, because that’s what they do for a living. They include the media, they include academics, they include entertainers, and they include the bureaucracy. And all of those groups, unlike the rich, lean in one political direction: all to the left, and sometimes very dramatically so.” This “clerisy,” McGinnis says, “does not begin with support from the rich. That term comes from Samuel Coleridge, so it’s a term that comes from a long time ago.” Coleridge and others thought that “with the decline of the nobility and the clergy, there will be some group that would be shaping society and that’s the name he gave to it.” 1/2