Political Correctness Is Hurting ‘Progressives’

To the Editor:

In a November 5 commentary (“‘Progressive Philanthropy’ Should Cast a Wider Net”), I argued that the left was becoming its own worst enemy by embracing sectarian philosophies that are alienating potential allies — and most of the American people. The letters to the editor that followed from Eli Il Yong Lee of the Petroglyph Monument Protection Coalition (“Organizing Isn’t All That Progressive Community Groups Do,” December 17) and from Teresa Odendahl and Aileen Shaw of the National Network of Grantmakers (“Progressive Grant Making: Give Grassroots Groups a ‘Raise,’” December 3) serve to illustrate my point.

Mr. Lee might have acknowledged that his antipathy toward progressive think tanks, litigators, media centers, magazines, and the rest of the non-organizer universe was a bit short-sighted and, yes, that thinkers and doers should be working together more effectively (my original point). Instead, he repeats his divisive statements and indulges in further name calling (e.g., that I evince a “patronizing, over-romanticized, Norman Rockwell perspective”).

I agree with him that some Washington-based groups “never ask for our input in the creation of policy initiatives,” or “end up cutting a deal in some Washington office that ends up hurting us back home.” But doesn’t this suggest the need for greater integration of national and local strategies, not less?

Mr. Lee would rather go it alone: “For us, that means that regular, everyday people — not policy makers, not think tankers, not lobbyists — have equal access to information, a forum to engage in meaningful political debate, and democratic decision-making processes.” This is the kind of statement that delights conservatives. While their policy wonks, think tankers, and lobbyists are working side by side with their grassroots organizations, ours are pilloried by activists like Mr. Lee, who would rather have “meaningful political debate” locally than meaningful legislation nationally.

Mr. Lee insists that his New Mexico-based group is committed to influencing “local, national, and international policies.” But, in his words, “Let’s get real.” In a country the size of ours, no one community’s influence can be more than trivial without intermediary organizations that are equipped to conceive, wage, and win national-scale campaigns. That’s how conservatives became so effective.

Mr. Lee’s bottom line is that progressive funders should spend every penny on grassroots groups like his. Mine is that they should balance their portfolios between national and local efforts, and weave the two together. The assumptions of philanthropic correctness implicit in Mr. Lee’s letter — local is better than national, grassroots better than policy, I’m better than you — are pushing the progressive movement into irrelevance.

Ms. Odendahl and Ms. Shaw are right to clarify that the National Network of Grantmakers’ study of the size of progressive philanthropy didn’t make those kinds of fractious distinctions — though, to be fair, I never said they did. But they use other screens that are equally dubious.

In their view, for example, grants should only be counted as “progressive” if they issue from foundations whose program officers are members of N.N.G. Ms. Odendahl and Ms. Shaw might have acknowledged the value of counting the vast number of liberal-left foundations that are not members of their organization, and welcomed the opportunity to tally them in the future when resources permitted.

Instead, they wax indignant about my criticizing their work, especially after “we invited him to speak at our recent national conference.” The reader would never know that before publishing my criticisms, I solicited — and incorporated — Ms. Odendahl’s and Ms. Shaw’s input. The tone of their letter, and of Mr. Lee’s as well, underscores that many on the left, including the N.N.G.’s leaders, have limited tolerance of dissent.

I have paid $250 in annual dues to the N.N.G. for several years and helped build its Donor Organizing Network because I believe in the network’s mission to organize foundation program officers committed to social change into a more powerful movement. When I suggest to the organization’s leaders that they might acknowledge, count, and mobilize the hundreds of staff members in more mainstream foundations who could be real allies, I’m really only asking that they, too, take their mission seriously.

Michael H. Shuman
Fellow
Institute for Policy Studies
Washington