Dr. Mark Lomax, II is an award-winning composer, acclaimed recording artist, renowned jazz drummer, and educator. He is a highly sought-after lecturer specializing in the socio-political and spiritual aspects of African-American art, music, race, and using the arts to build community. In addition to teaching and performing, Dr. Lomax has spent the last eight years working with various nonprofits as a grants manager at an Ohio-based community foundation, where he has co-led nationally focused Community Foundation Opportunity Network teams, led local equity work and has been at the forefront of efforts to close opportunity gaps for transition-aged youth. He is the author of the forthcoming book, “Toward a Politics of Humanity,” slated for release in 2024.
In today's rapidly evolving world, the challenges faced by communities across the globe have become increasingly complex. As we strive to create a more equitable society, we must recognize the pivotal role that Community Foundations can play in addressing these challenges and designing practical solutions alongside community members. By engaging with local stakeholders, Community Foundations can facilitate the development of innovative strategies that drive systemic change and promote social justice.
At their core, Community Foundations are public charities that strive to improve the quality of life within specific geographical areas. These organizations accumulate and manage various financial resources, including individual donors, corporations, and governmental bodies. As grant-makers, Community Foundations are uniquely positioned to identify local needs and direct resources strategically toward impactful initiatives.
To build a more equitable society, the actions of Community Foundations must be informed by the people they serve. By involving community members in designing solutions that address their specific needs, foundations can better understand what works and doesn't within different contexts. This inclusive approach fosters a more profound connection between the foundation and its constituents, creating environments where locals feel heard and understood.
Community-led solutions have proven more relevant, responsive, and sustainable than those imposed by external entities or authorities. When heightened levels of ownership are coupled with an intimate knowledge of local dynamics, there is an increased likelihood that initiatives will take root, adapt effectively to new circumstances, and ultimately deliver meaningful outcomes to communities over time.
One example of a Community Foundation-driven process comes from Flint, Michigan. The Community Foundation of Greater Flint (CFGF) has been instrumental in addressing clean water issues impacting thousands of residents due to lead contamination. Through effective grantmaking and partnerships with local organizations, CFGF has helped secure vital resources for families affected by this public health crisis while allowing space for developing long-term solutions informed by citizen voices.
To further promote the active engagement of community members in crafting equitable solutions, foundations can leverage various tools and methodologies. For instance, asset-based community development (ABCD) highlights the strengths and resources available within communities instead of focusing solely on their problems. By emphasizing the power of local assets, Community Foundations can catalyze capacity-building efforts that empower individuals to work collectively towards shared goals.
Collaboration among diverse stakeholders is also critical in inducing systemic change. Community Foundations can serve as conveners and facilitators, bridging divides between government agencies, nonprofits, educational institutions, businesses, and residents. By fostering relationships characterized by shared learning and continuous dialogue, these entities can effectively tackle the root causes underlying social issues rather than just treating their symptoms.
To enable meaningful change, Community Foundations must also be adaptive learners. This requires rigorous evaluation and data analysis to refine grantmaking activities continually. When grounded in evidence-based practice, philanthropic organizations can optimize resources and amplify the likelihood of success for their grantee partners.
Additionally, Community Foundations should emphasize transparency and accountability in all aspects of their work. By sharing data openly with community members, stakeholders are better positioned to hold these organizations accountable while offering feedback that drives improvement.
Community Foundations are indispensable in building a more equitable society through grantmaking and leadership activities. By prioritizing the co-design of solutions with community members, engaging diverse stakeholders in collaborative efforts, leveraging local assets, and fostering adaptive learning practices, these organizations can contribute significantly to driving systemic change worldwide. Community foundations' involvement becomes necessary and imperative as we strive to create a more just and inclusive future for all.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.