They Have No Sense of Decency; Does that Require a New Mandate for Philanthropy?

“Have you no sense of decency, Sir?” Joseph Welch’s challenge to the demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy stands as the watershed moment in another frightening moment in an attack on American democracy and its institutions.?I am old enough that I have a memory of that day.

It worked because it confronted the bully. Everyone knew McCarthy and his enablers were bullies and fear of reprisals and retribution surrounded his unconscionable actions and accusations.?Welch’s forceful challenge worked because the claim to decency awakened a somnolent morality in a majority of political figures.

Today, it need not be said, we have another, perhaps more profound and far reaching, challenge to American democratic institutions.?However, I fear the promoters and enablers have been shown to have no sense of decency, integrity, honesty, or shame.?We have seen our generation’s Welch’s be attacked mercilessly, dishonestly, and dismissively.?A claim to decency works when underneath it all, there is a consensus that we all acknowledge that civil society depends on it.?Decency and Indecency?shouldn’t have to be defined; we all should know them when we see them.?Sadly, far too many seem not to.

There are those in our society and particular in our sector who believe that there are ways to bridge the divides.?That if we could create spaces for empathy and understanding, a broad moderate middle would prevail – allowing for disagreement but characterized by, yes, tolerance, respect, and decency.?

The problem, though, is that what divides us today is not simply a different view of the role of government;?there are those who don’t believe in the legitimacy of the institutions of government if they don’t serve their partisan purposes.?There is a great deal to talk about with someone on the other side of the proverbial aisle if one believes in the same institutions and their legitimacy.?How can one compromise if one side is unwilling to acknowledge that legitimacy?

The same can be said about education.?No one will disagree that there is more than one way to teach, what the subject matters should be, and how to evaluate the effectiveness of that education.?But if there is not even agreement about what is truth, or science, or literature, there is no common ground starting point.?

These are not simply fine points in debate.?Denying climate change, politicizing and diminishing the reality of COVID, hiding behind a dubious and extremist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment leading to a rejection of any and all reasonable gun policies all lead to deaths.?Lots of deaths.?Unnecessary deaths.???How does one sit down to reach a middle ground when there are those who don’t accept any responsibility for their immoral partisan positions?

Now, of course not everyone with whom I may disagree is such an extremist.?But the loud voices that define these political positions are. And tragically, those voices dominate the political landscape and demand fealty.?Much as I admire and honor those in our society, and those in our sector who are very well-meaning people who in their hearts of hearts wonder “why can’t we all just get along?”, the landscape at the present has moved beyond that.

Another wrinkle that makes this even more challenging:?the deep abyss of distrust and cynicism – and in too many places, fear.?For but one example: Before COVID’s disruptions, I was quite involved in philanthropy’s efforts to guarantee a complete count in the recent census.?Long time readers may recall my distress to learn that whole swaths of the population simply didn’t trust that any information provided to any government agency was secure.?No matter how many times the census bureau promised confidentiality, they didn’t believe it.??And more troubling, the trusted community leaders to whom the funders and census folks turned made it very clear that they were not willing to tell their folks that they COULD trust what was being said.?They had seen too much abuse, too much information compromised, and too few defenses against a cruel and xenophobic administration. Why should they go to the line for the census when they couldn’t?assure its confidentiality??

And that deep cynicism carries over to those who might otherwise be considered safe and politically active.?My wife Mirele Goldsmith PhD is an environmental activist and expert.?She has devoted herself to creating teams of advocates for environmentally appropriate policies with elected officials throughout the USA.?All too often the response is?if their?elected officials are Democrats they are already on board so they don’t need to get involved; if their elected officials are Republicans, nothing will make a difference.?Why bother, then, to be politically active??

While it would be wrong to suggest that either of the just two examples is universal, they are common enough that it raises a troubling question.?How do we adjust an out of kilter system if too many are too intimidated and/or cynical to get engaged?

All of this is painful to me, especially as someone who has devoted many years to dialogues of all sorts. It is hard to reluctantly acknowledge that dialogue may simply not be a currently sufficient or even viable approach.?I don’t think there are easy answers, but I will turn to our own field, philanthropy, as a way to perhaps model an alternative.?In positing this “modeling” I in no way claim that it can or will bring about the kinds of necessary correctives to the divides – only that we may, at this moment in history, have a mandate to do nothing less.

During the past few years, and in particular over the last couple, our field has confronted our own structural and endemic dilemma.?Our institutional sector exists to make the world, or at least some part of it, better.?However, our very existence largely [not universally!] is because of the social, racial, and economic imbalances that rewarded some and, as is now evident, held far too many back.?The idea that generosity and grantmaking can rebalance is a suspect claim, especially when the decision making, the control, and the money stay with those who have been the major beneficiaries.?We have always known that we were the “power” in relationship to those who need or want resources that we are committed to allocate.?We have only recently been open about the systemic imbalances that got us that power.

In response, our field has had its sobering self-reflective moment – and has endorsed what seem to be constructive correctives.?Even if not everyone has figured out how to do “DEI”, lots of funders are talking about it.?Even if only some are using Trust-Based or Participatory methodologies in our grantmaking, the conversation has moved to the mainstage.?Even if values-based investment policies are not yet the norm, they have moved to the mainstream.?These, and many other challenges to traditional strategy or legacy styles of grantmaking are quite prevalent – though it remains to be seen how pervasive they remain over time and if the philanthropy field fully assimilates them.

However, this piece posits that we have a larger responsibility to incorporate many of these changes.?We, as overt structural symbols of power, need to demonstrate that our listening is not simply going through the motions, that our diversity is not merely tokenism, that our decision making is truly inclusive, that our grantmaking is courageous in our advocacy and our commitment to systemic correction.?We need to model that trust can be inculcated and be relied upon.?We need to show that we are not simply elitists fulfilling our noblesse oblige only to revert to our classist gates [symbolic or real] when the site visit is over.

In other words, our field needs to be the change we espouse.?After all, what other segment of society has the luxury and the privilege and the autonomy to do so voluntarily??Our very uniqueness mandates that we model that trust is not a fiction, that decency is not an abandoned attribute,?that dignity is a human and civic right.?Yes, you read correctly – at this time I no longer can say that it is simply a best practice or desideratum – it must be our mandate.

I have no illusions nor am I na?ve.?I don’t believe that trust in philanthropists and other funders?will suddenly restore that which has been destroyed.?But I also believe that it is our uniqueness to begin to build from the rubble that civility and civil society has become.?

No, even if we do this, it doesn’t exempt us from the even harder work of restoring the ethos of civility to a larger world.?But if we can show that our sector is modeling it, we are much more credible when we demand it of elected officials.?We do have a distinct and unique power; let’s use it.?They may have no sense of decency; we have no choice but to be otherwise.

...

This was also published as #414 on the WisePhilanthropy.Institute website. Many additional pieces may be found in the INSIGHTS section of that site.