Making the Moral Case for Change
Excerpted from Huffington Post
By Gara LaMarche
President and CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies
As President of The Atlantic Philanthropies, I have had a growing discomfort about the way foundations--as well as many of the causes we champion--stray too far from talking about their principles when describing what and why they do anything.
My sense is that philanthropy today--whether it's philanthropy on an institutional level or an individual making a donation--is too often driven by metrics often unconnected to core values. And our debates about politics today are too often driven by what message will "win the day," and what argument will be effective, rather than what is right. It's time to put the moral life back into our politics and our giving.
The Moral Life Of Philanthropy
The world of philanthropy needs to strike a better balance in arguing for change. Most philanthropic mission statements focus on "solving problems" or "addressing issues," but shy away from stating explicit and sometimes politically volatile goals. Even the foundations comfortable supporting public policy advocacy tend to avoid discussing it or making any effort to knit their disparate issues into a larger frame.
In our everyday lives as activists and donors, are we more likely to support an organization based on its tax status and effectiveness rating, or based on our passion for its goals and principles?In 1976, the philanthropist Paul Ylvisaker wrote: "Philanthropy [must] move out of fixed and safe positions into more independent, flexible and far more exposed stances between the contradictory forces that are generating tension, and without the resolving action of some agent such as philanthropy, will otherwise tear nations and neighborhoods apart."
In recent years, a number of foundations have formed what might be called an "effectiveness movement" in philanthropy, with the idea that good intentions are not enough. Atlantic has been deeply engaged in this movement, supporting the creation of organizations like The Bridgespan Group and Grantmakers for Effective Organizations to help nonprofits and grantmakers set smarter benchmarks and assess impact. But this movement is now finding that there is no real constituency for effectiveness, as such. Like our politics, it's easy to see why: values move people to enthusiasm and action, not sterile concepts of metrics and results.
Finding the Story Again
This challenge extends into our everyday lives as activists and donors, as well. Are we more likely to support an organization based on its tax status and effectiveness rating, or based on our passion for its goals and principles?
The 1960s was the last great period of progressive progress in the United States. From Nixon on, all Presidents have played on the same field, set by the political right. Republicans get to speak in grand moral terms about freedom, and Democrats become problem-solvers, subjected to ferocious criticisms questioning their patriotism, morality, and commitment to security abroad and at home.
The United States is in a toxic political moment. For progressives, who recently thought that the political arc of the last 40 years might finally be bending, it is beginning to seem clear that we have failed again at communicating a coherent and compelling worldview. We have policies, programs, bills, and many accomplishments that make life better for many people. But we are in danger of losing the gains we have made because the story has no moral.
We need to reinvigorate our moral discourse. If we want to be successful in bringing about lasting social change, we must keep our focus on what we want to change, and why. In the words of
Henry David Thoreau: "Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something."
Note: This post is adapted from a speech I delivered called "The Moral Life of Philanthropy," given at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in September 2010.
