TheAgitator.com
Jack Welch or Mother Theresa?
Thursday, September 19th, 2002Under the “feedback” section of my last Tech Central column, someone wrote in with this:
Smart column Mr Balko. Who is the better humanitarian? Obviously its Mr Welch, he’s done more to improve the general welfare of humanity than faux humanitarians such as Mother Theresa who merely thrived on human misery. Thanks in part to Mr Welch, Malden Mills may survive. Hope it does, I own a Polartec jacket, its a great product.
I’m guessing the Mother Theresa comparison is sarcasm, and that this response is a negative one. But should it be?
What, exactly, is a “humanitarian?” If your definition involves charity, philanthropy, “selflessness” and giving, then, well yes, Mother Theresa is the better humanitarian. (And, to be fair Isabel Paterson, who’s essay “The Humanitarian and the Guillotine,” I quoted from to begin the column, defines “humanitarian” this way.)
But if you define a “humanitarian” as someone who works to better the human condition, then yes, I’d say that Jack Welch is by far the better humanitarian. Mother Theresa fed and clothed impoverished Indians. And once they ate her food and wore her clothes, they were still impoverished and, eventually, they were hungry again. Throw an avowed capitalist into India sixty years ago. Give him the same amount of money that’s been given to Mother Theresa’s charities over the years, and see what happens. If he’s a talented capitalist, he’ll build a business. He’ll employ Indians, not merely feed them. And he’ll make a far bigger dent in the area’s poverty than a food station ever will. And all the while he’ll be motivated by greed — a desire to turn profits, to make money, to grow a business.
Let’s put it another way: if we could clone a thousand Jack Welches and/or Mother Theresas, and drop them into Bombay with some start-up money, which of the two options would do more good for more people (or, on a smaller scale, more good for more Indians), a thousand Jack Welches, or a thousand Mother Theresas?
Incidentally, one intresting coincidence a reader pointed out that I had overlooked. The Paterson quote has an elipse in the middle. In that elipse, she mentions that no philanthropist has come close to doing more good for more people than Thomas Edison, whose innovations and inventions monumentally improved the human condition, but were, again, inspired by a desire to better his own standard of living. Edison went on to found….General Electric, the company Jack Welch saved.
Interesting thing about humanitarianism, it usually requires spending the dollar that someone else earned. Greed begets philanthropy.
On the subject of Mother Theresa v Jack- one cannot forget that she might be feeding, administering medicine, or clothing someone who might otherwise cease being without this type of immediate intervention.
Niether is better than the other- they are complimentary. Each performing the extrordinary service for the betterment of humankind in the areas of interest to them.
Did you ever see John Stossel’s special entitled “Greed”?
I remebered Cypress Semiconductor CEO, T.J. Rodgers making similar comments.
Tracked this down at http://www.inequality.org/newsspring20002.html
After Stossel talks with Ted Turner about his $1 billion gift to the United Nations, he interviews T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor and the toughest boss in America, according to Fortune magazine. Turner’s gesture is “patently stupid,” Rogers says. “What he should do is take his money and invest it. He can’t help people any other better way than to invest it and to have the companies and buildings and plants that are created with his investment create jobs and wealth and products for other people. So running around giving his money away is a way to maybe make himself feel good, but it sure as hell isn’t a good way to help people.”
I disagree that the Jack Welch vs. Mother Theresa comments were intended to be sarcastic. The writer was simply making the point that the world’s capitalists and superstars do more for the world than people whose fame and power is derived from the lowest common denominator.
The inherent problem of the left is its focus on the lowest common denominator. This is why so much money is wasted on welfare, and why public schools are a failure. Society spends too much time congratulating people for helping losers instead of making winners. America doesn’t need more people with GED’s; America needs more Bill Gateses.
The most ironic part of the left’s and media’s focus on people who help losers is these people can get filthy rich pretending they care about people who supposedly can’t help themselves. Bill and Hillary Clinton have made $40 million since they left the White House. Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle’s immense power are derived from building a coalition of the bottom 50%. Democratic senators and representatives make a killing as Washington lawyers and lobbyists after they leave office. Michael Moore and media whores make millions writing books. It’s a good thing they care about us little people.
I posted the original comments quoted by Mr Balko making the comparison between Jack Welch and Mother Theresa. I am sorry to be the source of some confusion. No sarcasm was intended, I was being deadly serious. I honestly thought your column was impeccably reasoned and dead on target, but any column that starts with a quote from Isabel Paterson’s “The God of the Machine” has got a lot going for it. I also considered suggesting some kind of thought experiment along the lines you mentioned, -cloning these two individuals, dropping them in India and then coming back later to see who has made a more positive contribution - glad you actually did . But to ask this question is really to answer it and anyway a similar experiment has been carried out in real life on a much larger scale, compare North and South Korea, East and West Germany. Unfortunately the results come with millions of ruined lives and an ocean of spilled blood.
My definition of humanitarian is quite simple; someone who through their efforts, whatever their motive might be, selfish, altruistic or whatever, improves the general lot of humanity. By that definition capitalists are right up there with the best of them, alongside the other obvious candidates , e.g. discoverers of antibiotics, new technologies etc.
I concur fully with Mr Mecklenburgs comments.
Teresa’s probably a bad point of comparison: her reputation is grossly inflated. Friends with families in the developing world tell me she’s widely hated there, actually. Among other things, she’d offer life-saving aid only to those who renounced their religions and converted to Catholicism, and spent huge sums of money doubtless intended for the poor on aggrandizing her order. Christopher Hitchens wrote a book blowing her saintly cover called “The Missionary Position.”
i also am trying to work in the venture philanthropy area, which is a nice/interesting mix of venture capital plus philanthropy - obviously, it carrier both the good sides of philanthropy as well as good ol capitalism….i would like to discuss this more, especially with John who posted the comment regarding Mother Theresa and Welch - I live in Tokyo, Japan where venture philanthropy is still rather ‘undiscovered’. Can I please discuss this with some of your readers/commenters??
FRIENDS - Think you will enjoy this regarding General Electric and Jack Welch. I am rapidly becoming his legacy. GO TO: http://www.edwardbaskett.com. The music is beautiful, too.