What Is at Stake, and Why Philanthropy Must Respond

In the months since the 2016 presidential election, philanthropy has begun to respond energetically to real and perceived threats to longstanding American principles of justice, equality, and fairness. Yet more is needed to counter policies and actions that undermine democratic norms, roll back essential safety-net protections, and shrink or destroy government programs essential to the health of the nation and the planet.

For the nonprofit world, the election of Donald Trump as president has raised the stakes in ways the two of us have never seen. Most nonprofits have missions that address inequality, injustice, and fairness in some way or another, whether it’s providing services to poor people and others in need, working to protect and extend civil and human rights, promoting environmental and animal protections, advancing equal opportunity, or enriching arts and culture for all.

We strongly believe these values — and the nonprofit work informed by them — are in jeopardy. And whether Donald Trump is the proximate cause of that danger or merely a catalyst for the expression of years of pent-up frustration, we cannot ignore the problem.

Whether or not you applaud Trump’s campaign promise to "drain the Washington swamp" or Sen. Bernie Sanders calls to fix a "rigged" system, it is painfully clear that many Americans have developed a deep-seated distrust of government and politicians. The populist wave of resentment unleashed by Trump’s election is a manifestation of that disillusionment and anger.

Trump understands that Americans want change, that they want to see the system shaken up in a way that forces politicians to listen to their concerns. But his actions, more often than not, are directly contrary to his words. By not divesting himself of his business interests before taking office, Trump has ensured that his many conflicts of interest (and those of his family) are fair game for watchdog groups and the press. His refusal to release his tax returns and his decision to shut down a website showing who has visited the White House make a mockery of his "draining the swamp" mantra and transparency in government. His condemnation of leaks and willingness to undermine administration officials with his words and tweets, as well as to divulge secrets to the nation's adversaries, has sown fear and confusion where clarity and energy on behalf of the American people are needed.

In this and so many other ways, the Trump presidency threatens our notions of a mature, functioning democracy. Too often, his actions seem impulsive and irrational, not reasoned and well thought out, a presidency where "alternative facts" are aggressively promoted and the press is derided as "enemies of the people." Trump himself is a president who takes criticism personally and responds in a vindictive, illiberal manner, weakening our democracy by attacking judges, civil servants, public leaders, and anyone else who questions his veracity and truthfulness.

Indeed, the only predictable thing about Trump is his unpredictably. He was enthusiastically for the House bill to repeal and replace Obamacare before he decided it was "mean"; he was for a cybersecurity agreement with Russia and then wasn't; he intimated that there might be White House tapes of his meetings with former FBI director James Comey before revealing he made the whole thing up.

Trump's willingness to play fast and loose with the facts also means that top White House officials and spokespersons are regularly contradicted by his utterances. And the "Who’s on first?" quality of the administration's communications cuts both ways, as the president's tweets and statements are frequently contradicted by top administration officials.

Americans tend to view their presidents as role models. We shouldn't be surprised, therefore, to see the president's personal style ­— his shabby, bullying treatment of women and Muslims, his vulgar tweets, his regular incitements to violence ­— being copied by young people and even other politicians.

The combination of Trump’s impulsive personality and worst tendencies can lead to disastrous results, as in the case of his so-called election integrity commission. The commission had its genesis in an alternative Trumpian belief that Hillary Clinton's three-million popular vote margin was the result of millions of fraudulently cast votes — a claim no political scientist or voting expert believes. But the damage has been done: the commission has sown distrust in the soundness of our election system and may even, as many have noted, be an attempt to institutionalize voter suppression efforts in America.

Already forty-four states have said they will not comply with all or parts of the commission's request for sensitive voter data. Faced with legal challenges to the effort, the operational head of the commission, Kris Kobach — a former Kansas secretary of state with a history of voter disenfranchisement — has tabled the commission’s data collection request until the courts make a determination on its legality and the commission meets for the first time. Meanwhile, real issues such as making our voting machines and elections systems safe from foreign and domestic cybersecurity attacks go unattended.

Against this backdrop, a key question for the nonprofit sector is how to raise and talk about these concerns without appearing to be partisan. Some in the sector even worry that raising such issues will make them the bullseye of the next Trump tweet. To which we say, if nonprofits don't raise these issues, who will? And what are the long-term consequences of silence and inaction?

In other words, this isn't an issue of partisan politics. It's a question of values. It's a question of democracy.

Encouragingly, many nonprofits and funders have stepped up their game. Since the election, individual contributions to important organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood have soared. Foundations have made emergency grants to address issues like hate speech, strengthen protections for a free press, address election reforms (including the census and redistricting), and support greater government oversight and accountability.

Despite these and other efforts, political scientists Kristin Goss and Jeffrey Berry argue that not enough is being done by foundations to "reorient their giving — and their public voice — in a sustained way to counter threats to a high-functioning, civil, and inclusive democracy." We agree, but also recognize that much has already been initiated by organized philanthropy.

The core problem for foundations, however, is that they mostly fund single issues as opposed to cross-cutting themes such as strengthening democracy. Foundation Center has developed a database to track democracy spending, and it reveals that roughly 1.5 percent of foundation grants, or $754 million out of a total of $52 billion awarded in grants in 2014, was spent on democracy issues. Because some types of grants might not have been captured for one reason or another, let’s add an extra 0.5 percent to the figure.

But even 2 percent of foundation giving is not enough to fund the activities needed to protect the democratic norms and institutions we take for granted. There needs to be a concerted campaign to at least double this figure to 4 percent for democracy organizing, advocacy, and related policy and infrastructure work.

Yes, foundation leaders and program officers are faced with growing needs in most of their program areas, but — especially at this critical moment — dedicating resources to strengthening democracy is a fundamental investment that simply cannot be ignored.

Every foundation — local, state, regional, national — has a stake in this. Whether you fund the arts, human services, the environment or education, each is embedded in a political culture that, for the most part, values civility, inclusivity, transparency, and accountability — and requires an effective government, an engaged citizenry, and a healthy democracy. To lose that — to give in to partisanship, incivility, and authoritarianism – would be a tragedy of the very first order. We can't let that happen.

Gary D. Bass is executive director of Bauman Foundation and an affiliated professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. Mark Rosenman is a professor emeritus at Union Institute & University.

Comments

[David Jacobs]

Mark, I remember when you used to submit well written commentaries on PND, as opposed to screeds that could've been cribbed wholesale from a DNC fundraising letter or the comments section of the HuffPo.

I'll simply note that maybe if philanthropy and leading lights such as yourselves had been paying attention to certain ongoing issues with such zeal, you may not have gotten Trump. Better luck this time.

We will CERTAINLY agree on this though: "Every foundation — local, state, regional, national — has a stake in this. Whether you fund the arts, human services, the environment or education, each is embedded in a political culture that, for the most part, values civility, inclusivity, transparency, and accountability — and requires an effective government an engaged citizenry, and a healthy democracy. To lose that — to give in to partisanship, incivility, and authoritarianism – would be a tragedy of the very first order" -- Indeed, many of us feel as if we dodged that bullet given the results.

I'd certainly hate to see foundations and other organizations that do good works erode trust and goodwill from half of the American people.

[Mark Rosenman]

Hi, David. Sorry that you think that Gary and I have written an anti-Republican screed. We still think that we're responding honestly and openly to our president's behavior and to his and other Republican's assault on democratic norms and institutions.

I do agree with your point that had philanthropy and others better understood and addressed the depth and breadth of popular disillusionment with government, and had responsive programs been better funded, there may well have been a different sense in the electorate. While we're not calling for partisan action, we certainly are advocating now (as Gary and I often have in the past) for greater funding of democracy- and government-strengthening activities.

Perhaps if you could identify the parts of our argument that you find false, it would be helpful to advance this discussion. As it stands, I'm afraid your note parallels the kind of presidential utterance that we find difficult to accept as beneficial to our democracy, our people or our planet.

And, by the way, it wasn't close to "half of the American people" who voted for the current administration -- and it certainly is an even smaller percentage who approve of Trump's or Republican's governance since then.

Mark

[Rev. Walter G. Lewis]

An excellent piece! Provocative, hopefully an incentive for others involved to examine their giving strategies... from 2 to 4 %... should be an easy step! Thanks for making the challenge attainable!

No one I talk to, even in highly conservative Powhatan, VA, where I am the pastor at Saint John Neumann Catholic Church, can believe the inconsistency and the brutish behavior of one who, in the past, has served as a model. What has happened to truth and consistency? Parents that I know well are afraid to let their children see the news. What have we come to? Bullying in school escalates... does one wonder why?

There are many who are still speaking the "make America great" phrase. However, all of those involved in services to the needy – affordable housing, free clinics, food pantries, county social services, and the like – are aware of what federal and state budget cuts mean to real people. It is more than frightening... that's an emotional response. It is devastating in terms of the working poor and the elderly needy. The resources available today just begin to scratch the surface... we can't keep food on the shelves of the pantry, the free clinic has lines of people who have never been seen before... and it's just beginning!

Day after day, I hear stories of people trapped within the cycle of poverty... fighting to survive. They can't begin to plan, they can't see ahead, and they sink deeper and deeper. For example, if you get a notice that your electricity will be cut off in 14 days, one would expect an immediate response: pay the bill or ask for help in paying the bill. Instead families are so caught up with the immediacy of getting food, medicines, and other essential needs, they wait till the very last minute to ask for help to pay the electricity – and, oftentimes, that is too late and the result is a bureaucratic entanglement that at times is unstoppable and the family loses electricity, which, in turn, means the refrigerated food spoils. The bridges out of poverty are incredibly difficult to build. A system that should find its first priority as a response... places that last on the agenda.

As a parish, our commitment to outreach is well-known and growing in Powhatan. As a result, we have been given a $30,000 grant from a state Social Services agency to meet the needs of those who knock on our doors. The numbers flowing into the church offices are staggering. We had to hire a part time person just to handle requests. That's just in a very small community like Powhatan. Now, magnify that across the country!

Thank you for being the voice. You are right on target... hooray for your courage and willingness to ring the bell for a higher standard.

With deep respect and much love...

Rev. Walter G. Lewis