At first, this is a stealth effort – starting with what seem to be isolated acts by wealthy individuals, such as Turner’s new campaign, “Billionaires Against Bullshit”. But on July 4th, the group goes public, as they launch their initiative to undo the negative influence of corporate money in America’s capital through a sort of “reverse Gresham’s law” in which good money drives out bad.

This story is told in the new book by veteran American activist and sometime presidential candidate, Ralph Nader. He describes “Only the Super Rich Can Save Us” not as a novel but rather, an exercise in “practical Utopianism” in the tradition of English politician and philosopher, Sir Thomas More.

This is not, as Nader’s leftwing credentials might lead you to expect, a satire. He is serious, believing that the biggest obstacle to the political change he has sought throughout his career is money, of which a group of super rich people old enough to be focused on their legacy might be the perfect source. Nader has been able to make this case in person, as he has called all his leading characters to tell them he has written fictional versions of them. Most, he says, seemed happy enough, including Buffett, who he met for breakfast in Omaha a few weeks ago.

There are many similarities between Nader’s book and ours, as Matthew discussed with him the other day on stage at New York’s 92nd Street Y. We also include our own piece of practical Utopianism in our concluding chapter, by describing the junior Bill Gates celebrating his 70th birthday on October 25th 2025 aboard Richard Branson’s luxurious eco-friendly space mansion. After Paul Hewson, the secretary general of the United Nations formerly known as Bono, sings, Gates announces the eradication of malaria from the earth.

To be honest, we believe our Utopia is far likelier to be achieved than Nader’s. But we do share a belief that the super rich and their money can be a powerful force for good – and that currently they are not making the most of that opportunity, not least because of a reluctance to get too deeply into the political process (with the notable exceptions of Soros, who likes to describe himself as a “political philanthropist”, and Michael Bloomberg, who is about to buy himself a third term as mayor of New York and still aspires to occupy the White House). As we have argued many times, changing government policy is a crucial way in which philanthrocapitalists can leverage their relatively small amounts of money, as Gates is starting to discover, although, as he is also discovering, this can be controversial.

Our strongest point of disagreement is over the role of companies. Nader believes that companies are the primary source of corruption in the political process, capturing Washington to serve their interests rather than those of the people. We actually see signs of change at the top of a growing number of leading companies as bosses realise that being a good corporate citizen is crucial to their long-term success.

Both Nader and we use Wal-Mart, the huge retailer, as the focus of our argument – and in this respect, perhaps Nader is more open to the possibility of change than his rhetoric suggests. In his book, Wal-Mart is persuaded to abandon its lifelong opposition to trade unions. In our book, we tell the true story of how Wal-Mart converted to the cause of fighting climate change.

We have many differences with Nader on the specifics of what the super rich could (and should try to) achieve. We aren’t convinced, for example, that electing Warren Beatty as governor would be the answer to California’s many problems (though, in this idea, as in the roles he gives to Yoko Ono and Bill Cosby, Nader shares our belief in the power of celanthropy). But it is striking that someone who has spent a lifetime campaigning for social change – sometimes to great effect (as in making cars safer) – has come, through hard-earned practical experience, to share our belief that super rich “hyperagents” are essential partners for activists in building a better world.

The report, produced in partnership with the Climate Group, a business-backed organisation campaigning for action to counter global warming, lists seven “tried and tested” policies which Blair says could achieve the goal of getting carbon emissions to peak by 2020, and decline thereafter. It is part of Blair’s “Breaking the Climate Deadlock” initiative, designed to generate political pressure around the world for a breakthrough at the climate change summit in Copenhagen at the end of the year.

“Now is the moment,” said Blair. “Up to now, climate change has been an issue around which there has been an immensely important and successful campaign, but this is the moment when we take this out of the position of a great campaign and into the position of practical policy.”

Tackling climate change is one of a portfolio of philanthropic initiatives that Blair has chosen to pursue since leaving 10 Downing Street in 2007. Chosen is the key word: as Blair told Matthew in a recent interview at New York’s 92nd St Y, one of the things he likes most about his new life is his ability to choose what he focuses on, rather than being at the mercy of events, as he was in office. Now, as well as climate change, he is choosing to focus on development in Africa and promoting better relations between the world’s religions through his Tony Blair Faith Foundation, as well as continuing to work as a peace envoy in the middle east. (You can watch here excerpts from Blair’s interview at the 92nd St Y, in which he talks about prospects for peace between Israel and Palestine.)

As we write in Philanthrocapitalism, Blair is following in the footsteps of two former American presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, in pursuing a post-governmental career built on philanthropy.
As, like Clinton especially, Blair did not leave office a rich man, the assets he gives are essentially his personal brand and convening power, which makes his philanthropy a politically-coloured version of the celebrity giving we call celanthropy. There are many positive aspects to this, as both Carter and Clinton’s efforts have made clear – and, like them, Blair may well do more good out of office than he did in it. As yet, however, there is no plan to follow Clinton’s lead by launching a Blair Global Initiative – though it surely cannot be ruled out at some point.

Like Clinton’s, Blair’s brand is global and powerful, yet comes with a complicated legacy from actions taken in office. This legacy certainly makes effective philanthropy harder. In an article in the New Yorker a few years ago, it was argued that Clinton’s philanthropic commitment to Africa was prompted in part by his guilt at failing to do more for the continent when he was in office. Some observers suggest that similar feelings may be driving Blair’s promotion of religious harmony, given that many people feel that America’s invasion of Iraq, which he supported with British troops, significantly worsened relations with Islam, for example – though as Blair told Matthew, he remains adamant that the invasion was the right thing to do.

As Blair joked, saying that his goals are to help bring peace in the Middle East and between religions often prompts people to look at him as if he has taken leave of his senses. His Africa Governance Initiative, by contrast, seems far more down to earth. Here, his aim is to work with African leaders (such as Paul Kagame of Rwanda) to build the capacity of their staff to deliver poverty-reduction policies. Given that in government Blair helped secure billions of dollars in new government aid to Africa, and given the growing fear that this money will be wasted, it is encouraging that he recognises the need for Africa to increase its ability to govern itself in ways that promote prosperity, and that he is doing something practical to help.

Kutcher, the “other half” of Demi Moore, is now the leading celanthropist when it comes to using the new media to promote a cause. (Point of information for those who think philanthrocapitalism is an ugly word: “celanthropist” was coined by Time magazine, whilst the winner is surely celebrity-baby’s Twitterlebrity.) However, if Oprah starts to “tweet” on a regular basis, she will soon overtake him.

Ray Chambers, the billionaire philanthrocapitalist who helped found Malaria No More, was excited about the potential of Twitter and other interactive technologies to help change the world, when he
spoke on April 17th at Georgetown University’s well-attended and strikingly upbeat Global Forum on “Profit, Policy and Philanthropy: The Keys to Global Development” (at which Matthew also spoke).

Malaria No More is fast emerging as one of the most innovative and effective partnerships in the world of philanthrocapitalism, with a coalition spanning News Corp to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and best-selling purpose-driven evangelical minister Rick Warren to, well, Ashton Kutcher. Read Matthew’s account of the entertaining goings-on at its first White house Summit here.

Whatever happens to the economy, we expect doing good to be transformed over the next few years by interactive technologies. Among other things, this will enable all donors – not just the super rich – to have greater confidence that their money is having an impact. It will also enable one of the most frequently ignored groups to have more of a voice – the needy people who philanthropy, large and small, is trying to help. We are big fans of internet-based organisations such as Kiva.org, DonorsChoose.org and globalgiving.com - but we also think they are only the beginning of what will be a revolutionary change. For a good read on the potential, we recommend “Causewired” by Tom Watson.

For anyone bemused by Twitter, check out this naughty Stephen Colbert moment as well as this how-to video on youtube. Matthew will start to “tweet” more frequently under the alias @mattbish. Help him beat Oprah to the two million mark by signing up to “follow” him here.

Yet being a celebrity, especially a famously beautiful one, does not necessarily make you an air head. The Jolie-Pitt Foundation funded a fascinating discussion on “International Law and Justice: Evolving Norms and US Responses”. Speakers included former US general Wesley Clark, foreign policy advisors to Barack Obama and John McCain, and Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Mr Ocampo was criticized by one questioner for thanking “a private foundation” for its support, suggesting that this was somehow undermining his integrity.

This is the sort of criticism philanthropists and those who partner with them will have to get used to, as philanthrocapitalism increasingly moves into politically sensitive territory, such as whether to prosecute a sitting head of state.

The standard criticism of celanthropists is that they peddle superficial, simplistic solutions. Yet in her talk, as she did when we interviewed her for the book, Jolie modestly stressed that she still had much to learn and that she did not know if the ICC was the answer to some of the human rights abuses she was highlighting. True, she did argue that peace negotiations, such as might occur in Sudan over Darfur, should not buy peace at the price of giving abusive leaders impunity from justice. Some might call that naïve, but it is exactly the same position that Ocampo took moments later.

Matthew asked Ocampo if his job would be easier if he could offer a plea bargain to a “criminal” head of state, allowing him or her to go into exile with safe haven from prosecution for going quietly. There have been suggestions that the fear of prosecution of himself and his henchman deterred Robert Mugabe from accepting an offer of exile after the first round of presidential elections in Zimbabwe earlier this year. Ocampo insisted that the era of leaders such as Idi Amin accepting exile in Saudi Arabia is over.

That may disappoint at least one philanthrocapitalist, Richard Branson, who as we report in the book, hatched a plan on the eve of the 2002 invasion of Iraq to fly Nelson Mandela into Baghdad to talk Saddam Hussein into going into exile, and thereby avoid a terrible war. Alas, the bombing started before the plan could be executed. Yet the plan planted a seed in Branson’s head that ultimately led to an innovative approach to global problem solving, the creation of The Elders, a group of former world leaders selected by Mandela to act as international troubleshooters.