Speaking His Mind: Gingrich on Nonprofit Issues

As a member of Congress, Newt Gingrich was known for his outspoken conservative views.

Now as the head of a political think tank, American Solutions for Winning the Future, the former Republican lawmaker from Georgia continues to speak his mind, including on nonprofit issues.

For instance, he strongly disagrees with the plans of both presidential candidates to expand national-service programs, criticizes proposals by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to increase oversight of wealthy universities, tax-exempt hospitals, and other charities, and argues that ministers should have the right to endorse politicians from the pulpit.

While critical of large foundations, which he considers to be too liberal, he does praise the role that nonprofit groups, philanthropists, and volunteers can play as a force outside the government, a role he says originates from the American tradition of citizen activism that began with Benjamin Franklin.

“If you look at a guy like Franklin, who I think finished his business career at 49, he was successful enough then to be a citizen the rest of his life. He had a conscious design on his part to make the money, be successful, and now that you can live well, do good things,” he says.

A former college history professor, Mr. Gingrich frequently drops the names of scholars like de Tocqueville and Boorstein, while on the wall of his Washington office hangs a framed copy of John Trumbull’s famous painting of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

His advocacy group, American Solutions, which has offices in Atlanta, San Francisco, and Washington, is seeking to create nonpartisan ways to solve America’s big problems in areas like education, immigration, and energy needs.

Some nonprofit leaders certainly disagree with what he advocates. For example, his group was successful in helping to persuade Washington to lift a federal ban that prevents oil companies from drilling in U.S. territories, including along the coasts. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and other environmental organizations oppose offshore drilling.

But he has also reached across political divides, to liberal Democrats like the Rev. Al Sharpton, to find ways to improve public schools.

In a recent interview with The Chronicle, he describes his advocacy goals, gives advice to foundations, and warns of what he sees as a threat to nonprofit organizations by government bureaucracy.

The following are excerpts from The Chronicle’s conversation with Mr. Gingrich. Audio excerpts from the interview are available at http://philanthropy.com/extras.

Why didn’t you run for president?

We haven’t finished developing a generation of solutions. I felt the largest vacuum in American life today is a generation of solutions, not a generation of ambition.

I spoke with my wife at length about [running] and we were very tempted. I have to confess that, watching the mess this fall, I sort of have some pangs; it would’ve been fun.

What can the next president do to promote volunteering and philanthropy?

He can do a lot by example and he can do a lot by policy. A president who wants to encourage civic activism can have a big impact. A president who wants to focus his energy on bureaucracy has a different impact. It partly depends on how you think the culture talks to itself.

The longer-term trend is for civil society to play a bigger and bigger role because we’re beginning to realize the limitations of bureaucracy at getting a whole range of things done.

What do you think of the presidential candidates’ pledges to grow AmeriCorps and other national-service programs?

They’re wrong. I just think it’s part of the banality of the bureaucracy. If you go and interview the AmeriCorps people, they’re all well-meaning, they all love what they’re doing, and you say to yourself, explain to me why the government is paying for this? Because it’s not volunteerism. If you get paid for it, it’s a job. It may be a low-paying job, but it’s a job.

Do you also disagree with Senator Obama’s proposal for a Social Investment Fund Network, which would support charities working on innovative projects?

If Obama thinks we need that, why doesn’t he call the 10 biggest foundations and suggest to them that they collectively create a clearinghouse for social entrepreneurs and let them go do it. There’s more than enough money in the social sector to do an amazing number of things without federal government creating a bureaucracy to compete with it.

How do you respond to lawmakers who are calling for more regulation of some nonprofit groups?

The thing I worry about is when you have a government which can’t control the border, can’t fix New Orleans, managed to mess up Baghdad, and is currently messing up Wall Street, why would they want to go out and mess up philanthropies?

My disbelief in something good and constructive coming out of Washington bureaucracy and Capitol Hill is so deep right now that, until they get their own act together and figure out how to reform their own systems, I don’t think they should look very much at anybody else. This city is a disaster and it’s getting worse every year.

I would suggest the Senate might find 2,500 other things more profitable to clean up — all of them inside the government — before they start worrying about philanthropies.

What advice do you have for grant makers?

If you take all the philanthropies in the country, the range is unbelievable in size, pattern, culture, etc. But I’d make four observations that any philanthropist or foundation could check themselves against.

The first is, are you doing something you can explain to the average American in a coherent way that’s compelling and makes them think what you’re doing is worthwhile?

The second is, are you using information technology to maximize your transparency, accountability, and your ability to network to people who might have good ideas for you or might need your good ideas?

The third is, can you explain what you’re trying to achieve in the context of the values of the American culture or in fact are you trying to create a new set of values? It’s certainly legitimate for people to do [the latter] but they should at least be honest about what they’re doing.

And the fourth is, do you have metrics that are objective, measurable, and enable you to know whether you are throwing money away on process or whether you have outcomes that are worth the effort? And are you using the outcome data to force yourself to change things even when it makes you uncomfortable?

What is your goal with American Solutions?

I want to know what it will take for us to be the most successful, prosperous, and safest country in the world when my two grandchildren [ages 7 and 9] are in their 40s. When Americans think about the future of their children or grandchildren, it suddenly becomes real and personal. You come to understand what’s at stake in a nonpolitical, nonabstract way.

I really want to have a national dialogue, in which if I’m wrong, people can tell me I’m wrong. And if I’m right, people have to come to grips with the consequences of what that means.

I am a reform Republican looking for reform Democrats and reform independents who collectively understand the old order isn’t going to make it. We’re not going to be the most successful country in the world if we don’t break out.

But if you want to be nonpartisan, why set up American Solutions as a political group?

We wanted to say things that were explicitly political in a way that we didn’t have to worry about the IRS. This is one of the things that troubles me about John McCain; I believe the McCain-Feingold [campaign-finance law] is unconstitutional. The heart of the American experience is the right of citizens to speak out in an effective way.

Given your background, is it hard to bridge political divides and reach out to people like Mr. Sharpton?

Sure, I think that’s part of who I am. But on the other hand, look at Sharpton’s background. He probably finds it as weird reaching out to me as I find reaching out to him.

We have just started working with Al Sharpton, which is really one of our most interesting breakthroughs. I give him a lot of credit and a lot of courage on that. He came to the Republican convention and 500 people gave him a standing ovation, which I thought was amazing.