|
[Printer Friendly Version]
The 2004 Election and The Nonprofit Sector
by Michael C. Gilbert, January 2005
You probably already know that I consider the re-election of George Bush to be a disaster for civil society and the nonprofit sector, especially within the United States.
More specifically: I believe that the current U.S. government funding priorities are investing massively in the organizational development of the institutions of private power, especially the oil, military, and mercenary industries, rather than in the institutions of civil society. I believe that the systematic erosion of civil liberties represents an unravelling of the basic building blocks of the organizations and networks of civil society and that restoring them after another four years will be very hard. I believe that all elements of the commons -- from the environment, to common knowledge, to the government purse -- are being plundered for private gain and that the consequences will be with us for a generation or more.
I've always felt that the nonprofit sector, for all its enormous diversity, has values that are shared by all but a small proportion of the organizations that are a part of it. Let me put those values in simple personal terms: I support this sector because the sector believes in kindness.
Or enough of the sector does. Yes, there are alliances of polluters and criminals of one kind or another, but there are few enough of them that I can ignore them. Those alliances are nonprofits only by accident of the tax code, not because they are moved by a kind heart to defend the interests of, for example, the pharmaceutical companies. And yes, even among the majority that share a belief in kindness, there are a great many ideas about how to bring about a kinder world. Those ongoing tensions about means and ends are interesting to me and a potential source of creative strategy, but however much we may argue, we still have more in common than not.
But as much as I may think the election is an obvious disaster to the sector, it remains far too easy for any particular organization to think that it doesn't affect them. So, I decided to take a little tour through the National Taxonomy of Exempt Organizations and compile my off the cuff reactions to the impact of this election on a few of the top level categories of our sector. This is neither comprehensive nor rigorous, but it's a start.
A Scan of the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities
Arts and Culture: The administration has aggressively pursued a course of media consolidation, making the means by which the arts and culture reach the people subject to increasingly narrow corporate control. This president supports banning books and plays that portray sexual minorities in a positive light.
Education: The PATRIOT Act's provisions for spying on our reading habits have not been revoked. The Republican rhetorical frame, as it criticizes so-called elites, is virulently anti-education. The hundreds of millions of dollars spent on misleading and untruthful abstinence education is just one symptom of this. The unfunded requirements of the so-called No Child Left Behind measure is another, allowing Bush to scold and boast, but not deliver.
Environment: BushCo's commitment to oil as its preferred energy source has us flouting scientific consensus on global warming and dragging the world into war. This administration's looting of the treasury is exceeded only by its looting of the environment, but they are equally disingenuous about it. The tree cutting measure called the Healthy Forrests Initiative comes to mind, as does the so called Clear Skies Initiative.
Animals: There's no doubt that this administration would like to treat some animal rights organizations as terrorists, particularly those that believe in nonviolent sabotage as a political tactic, but I don't think they have it in for our pets. Wild animals that are going extinct are another matter entirely. The Bush cabal could easily kill off, embalm, and put on display the last few hundred members of a species of Tiger and call it the "Tigers Forever Initiative".
Health Care: If you're a drug company, you are probably pretty happy with BushCo. But if you care more about public health than money, then you are probably not too happy right now. The administration supports telling lies about sex, witholding international public health funding, suppressing or muddling accurate reproductive health information, and virulently opposing various measures that might actually fix the dysfunctional U.S. health care system.
Mental Health: Community mental health programs are terribly under funded. Addictions are probably fine with these folks, so long as they make the right people rich. Typically this means drug companies. And if the mentally ill end up in prison, that's fine too, since it enriches the prison industry at public expense.
Diseases and Medical Research: If the profit can be privatized and the costs socialized, then this gang is all for it. Prevention doesn't produce enough profit, drugs do. When it comes to the diseases of the poor, especially if those poor don't live in the US, then Bush -- in one of my favorite Texas expressions -- is all hat and no cattle.
Crime, Law and Public Safety: This administration will use cops to suppress people wearing t-shirts bearing slogans with which Bush disagrees, but it won't fund basic community safety services, unless they are being done by mercenaries in Iraq. You won't find administration support for initiatives that might actually reduce crime, like drug law reform. There is plenty of support for anything related to "terrorism", which appears to include suppressing demonstrators and spying on peace activists. And forget about reigning in corporate crime. Bush can't even offer moral leadership, since his administration is run, in part, by suspected war criminals and has actively thwarted the rule of international law.
Employment: Labor unions fit in this category and they are one of those collective advocacy groups (along with trial lawyers) that this administration despises. And with regard to employment in general, all I can say is that Bush has certainly helped create a demand for the services of many of these organizations.
Food and Agriculture: If it's subsidizing big agriculture, these guys are all for it. But when it comes to feeding the poor, forget it, unless it's a chance to subsidize (certain) religion along the way.
International: Promotion of international understanding and credibility? International peace and security? International human rights? These are under attack from all sides by this country's rulers.
Civil Rights: This is one of those issues that, like philanthropy itself, is part of the very fabric of the sector and that fabric is coming unravelled. The activities and messages of organizations with positions challenging those of George W. Bush have been marginalized or restricted. More and more nonprofits are being spied upon and infiltrated.
Science: Across a range of issues, this administration has shown contempt for science, scientists, and the scientific method. This has gotten so bad that Nobel Laureates have lined up to denounce it. But the administration continues to deride those who live in a "reality based" world.
Public Benefit: This entire category of organizations is threatened. Public or community owned infrastructure of every kind, whether it's schools or water, even the military, is being pushed into private, corporate hands. Consumer protection is being undermined under the guise of attacking trial lawyers, when in fact junk lawsuits are primarily a corporate tool.
Religion: I suspect right wing "Christian" organizations will do just fine. But if your spirituality calls upon you to oppose war and injustice, as mine does, the best you'll get from BushCo is ignored. And if you're an Islamic charity, watch out.
Looking for Patterns
Nobody would mistake this list for anything but an idiosyncratic snapshot of the impact of this administration on the nonprofit sector, although I hope I have provided enough related resources to show that there is a basis for these observations. Of the top level categories in the NTEE, I haven't touched on Housing, Human Services, Recreation, Youth, Community Improvement, Philanthropy, and Mutual Benefit organizations. Nor are my one or two sentences for each category anything more than illustrative.
But the fact that it was so easy to come up with these observations is revealing. I have no doubt that a deeper analysis will reveal many organizations who stand to benefit from the Bush regime. Many industry associations will benefit, of course. As will organizations that advance the interests of the rich. But I am convinced that, however diverse we may be, the values and systems of the nonprofit sector are under broad attack.
Please note that I'm not assessing the impact of this administration on the fundraising success of varying organizations. Civil liberties organizations and environmental groups are raising a lot of money these days, because the administration is waging war against their core issues. But the increased demand for a great many nonprofits can hardly be considered a good thing. What it means instead is that, across the board, we are losing.
I just hope we join together in a common cause before it's too late.
If you found this article interesting or helpful,
please consider making a donation to Nonprofit Online News.
It will probably feel good!
|
|