The Realist Idealist

That David Brooks would write an article about social entrepreneurship and more or less delineate the exact path that many of my friends have taken in recent years (graduate from top 20 US university –> Year of Service program like TfA –> grad school –> software/business/corporation –> launch social enterprise) was surprising to me.

NYT: Thoroughly Modern Do-Gooders

I smiled at the end.

The work of America Forward (and that of New Profit) is some of the best that’s out there when it comes to social enterprise and tackling social problems at their roots through sustainable business-based initiatives. And to be perfectly honest - it’s not something that I expected a guy like Brooks to get behind or write about. When I read his piece, I felt a weird sense of increased viability coming to this type of work in the public’s eyes. Like, “holy shit, people might actually get behind this and help make it happen.”

Essentially the idea of America Forward is

“to connect social entrepreneurs with policymakers to promote innovative solutions and provide a new vision for the role government can play in solving our nation’s social problems.”

Great idea, right? I love it when I read it, but for a realist-idealist, the prospect of getting government to back these initiatives and provide social investment funds around them in order to reach truly scaled impact has seemed oddly out of reach in recent years. Worth fighting for to be sure, but damn hard.

Clearly, social enterprise has gained tremendous notoriety in recent years through things like Fast Company’s Social Capitalist Awards, but backing and support from government and the “mainstream” has been so much slower to come that I found myself surprised when it was. “Doing good” is still far too strongly entrenched in the minds of the many as “charity” or “nonprofit-y” (and then of course the stereotypes of nonprofits is whole other topic).

My following of David Brooks op-eds has led me to believe that he’s a guy who doesn’t beat around the bush - typically telling it like it is, even if it’s not something that I want to hear. I certainly don’t agree with everything he writes, but I find myself (for better or worse) lending more credibility to the topics he purports. As though they are somehow more likely to happen because of it.

That social enterprise and social investment funds have fallen under his radar and that he’s making sure the world’s NYT readers know about it is a big deal (at least to me).

What are some of your reactions to Brooks piece or getting social venture backing from governmental entities?