Giving Compass' Take:
- Nina Luo discusses how progressive organizations can work to strengthen democracy through philanthropy.
- What is your role in strengthening democracy as a donor?
- Learn more about best practices in philanthropy.
- Search our Guide to Good for nonprofits in your area.
What is Giving Compass?
We connect donors to learning resources and ways to support community-led solutions. Learn more about us.
Progressive philanthropy lacks good strategy, so too many of our organizations are hollow—and that left us unable to prevent a second Trump term and strengthen democracy through philanthropy.
In the wake of Trump’s reelection, many of us on the progressive left are reevaluating our work. We’re taking a hard look at the campaigns and movements we’ve given our lives to to strengthen democracy through philanthropy and asking ourselves, where did we go wrong? I’ve especially seen this humility from the leaders who have delivered some of the few wins we’ve had over the last decade—the formation of new unions, federal climate investments, student debt forgiveness, and the expansion of social safety nets in blue states. This is because—unlike, apparently, many Democratic consultants and campaign advisers—we know we’re in much bigger trouble than just a messaging misstep or a weak presidential candidate.
Rather than grappling seriously with how Democrats should respond to this macroeconomic crisis in the electorate, many pundits have blamed progressive nonprofit advocacy groups for pushing the Democratic Party too far to the left on identity politics, as Matthew Yglesias did in his postelection analysis. Yglesias is wrong, though, about “the groups” being the decision-makers on this. More often than not, Democratic operatives themselves, in their attempt to hold a heterogenous voter coalition together and strengthen democracy through philanthropy, were appealing to identity politics or non-economic issues—seemingly so that they could avoid giving into populist economic demands and keep their big donors happy.
However, Yglesias did get something right: “The groups” he refers to do have a “demonstrated inability to actually drive votes or deliver constituencies.” And that is what progressive leaders must now reckon with. Many of our “groups” do not represent the multiracial working class, and besides labor, it’s not clear who on the left still does. Both political scientist Theda Skocpol and the late labor leader Jane McAlevey have documented the erosion of organized bases that are truly active. National organizations may claim memberships of hundreds of thousands or millions, but in reality include online petition signatures in that count. Local grassroots organizations may claim to represent the working people of a city or county, but struggle to turn out more than 30 people to an action. A “member” once was someone who attended weekly political education sessions and regularly canvassed their entire apartment building; now what counts as “membership” is hollow.
Read the full article about strengthening democracy through philanthropy by Nina Luo at The Nation.