December 11, 2008 | Read Time: 5 minutes
The 2008 presidential campaign will be remembered for the election of the first African-American as chief executive of the United States, as well as many other historic moments. But it was also noteworthy for the overwhelming support the philanthropic world gave to the Democratic candidate.
The solid backing that nonprofit workers gave to President-elect Barack Obama certainly means they will have high expectations for him — and they are almost certain to face a major letdown as well as potential harm for their long-term prospects if they fail to pay more attention to Republicans.
According to a study of big charities and foundations conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics for The Chronicle of Philanthropy, staff members at nonprofit groups gave 88 percent of their financial contributions to Barack Obama. Presumably, their votes followed suit.
Other factors, such as the impact of the sagging economy, undoubtedly had more to do with the outcome of the race than the endorsement of people in the nonprofit world.
But nonprofit leaders may want to keep in mind one of the ironic sayings of American politics — that the best way to achieve a political agenda is to vote for the candidate who opposes it. The nugget of truth in this statement is that once in office, elected officials — especially those eligible to be re-elected — usually seek to broaden their base of support by reaching out to their former adversaries. This tactic not only makes subsequent victories easier and provides a cushion against defections from the winner’s own ranks, but also builds the bipartisan coalitions needed to make important and lasting changes in public policy.
With his cabinet selections, President-elect Obama has already begun shifting course. His top economic and foreign-policy advisers include not just a onetime rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, but also prominent Bush administration decision makers, such as Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary.
While complaints from Mr. Obama’s core supporters have so far been muted, his critics on the right have expressed cautious approval.
During the campaign, Senator Obama also adopted positions at variance with those held in certain quarters of the philanthropic world on issues such as campaign finance, welfare policy, and government support of religious charities (“Obama’s Campaign Seeks Real Change in the Nonprofit World,” Opinion, July 24).
What his administration will do about these or other matters of interest to nonprofit groups remains to be seen, but the enormous financial commitments being made to business leaders should dampen any hopes of sharply increased financing of charitable causes, perennially the top item on philanthropy’s wish list.
In any case, if people in the nonprofit world contributed and voted largely in lock step during this year’s election, they are unlikely to speak with one voice after Inauguration Day. Although associations such as Independent Sector have tried to forge common positions, the truth is that philanthropy typically has multiple agendas, even on issues that affect all kinds of nonprofit groups, such as tax policies.
As a result, the enormous support that nonprofit officials gave the Obama campaign at the ballot box will fragment in the corridors of Washington, as health, education, international-aid, arts, or other groups pursue their particular interests, irrespective of — and perhaps even in conflict with — those of the rest of the nonprofit world.
Foundations, for example, can be expected to oppose efforts to increase payout rates or attach restrictions on their grant making, as organizations representing service providers or minorities would like to see occur.
If the Obama administration tries to spend billions on its pledge to help college students pay for their education with community service, it may face objections from university officials, who are apt to prefer additional money going into traditional financial-aid programs.
In short, translating contributions and votes into new or improved government programs never happens smoothly. Even though President-elect Obama campaigned on a message focused on change, the administrative and legislative challenges facing nonprofit organizations in Washington — considering the great differences to be found among them and with other parts of American society — may not have changed much at all.
Not least important, philanthropy’s steadfast support for the Obama campaign presents political risks.
If nonprofit leaders’ loyalty to the new administration comes to be taken for granted, its ability to influence policy makers could be diminished. With the American electorate still closely divided, groups that claim to speak for uncommitted voters are likely to get more attention — and reap more benefits — than those firmly in the camp of one or another side, as the 2008 election revealed the philanthropic world to be.
Moreover, philanthropy’s one-sided backing of the Democratic Party could make working with Republicans more difficult. This is problematic not just because Republicans will eventually regain power in Washington, but also because, as even liberal observers have noted, charities have to a large degree already cut themselves off from the policy ideas championed by conservatives and other GOP-leaning groups in areas such as antipoverty strategies, education, and economic development.
With Republican governors and other officeholders likely to be open to finding solutions to such problems as a way to reinvigorate their party, the philanthropic world will suffer if it is not involved with them.
Barack Obama’s election victory owed a good deal to the support he received from people who work at nonprofit organizations. But in politics, gratitude is fleeting, and change is inevitable. If it wishes to play an influential role in the next few years and beyond, philanthropy needs to keep that in mind.
Leslie Lenkowsky is professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University and a regular contributor to these pages. His e-mail address is llenkows@iupui.edu.
