Notes from the Left Coast

Drummond Pike’s Blog

A NY Times editorial week before last recounted the harsh attacks from Liz Cheney’s “Keep America Safe,” a joint effort with the ever-intolerant William Kristol. These two self-proclaimed protectors of our national character have remarkably concluded that lawyers who volunteered their time to provide basic legal representation to Guantanamo detainees were somehow condoning or supporting terrorism. Seven of these brave souls have moved on to appointments in the new Administration’s Department of Justice, and that has given rise to fear-mongering among the likes of Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kristol who apparently condemn the American tradition of providing counsel to even the most egregious of characters. This vital part of our system ensures all of our rights, for who is to know what crazy twist of fate might lay in the future of any one of us where we may need representation after being accused, perhaps wrongfully, of something terrible. What makes it work is its universality. If we start parsing rights, we all lose.

This tactic, primarily practiced by rightwing conservatives, but also by leftwing fringe as well, is endangering us all. Character assassination is very hard to dismiss as just part of the “rough and tumble” of political and public life. Many of us involved in charitable work designed to increase the rates of participation of disenfranchised Americans in civic life have to life with daily assaults in the blogosphere and elsewhere, some of such vituperative and false content that it stretches one’s sense of reasonableness.

But isn’t this pattern of attacking the character of opponents just a step or two removed from attacking whole groups? And isn’t attacking whole groups exactly the kind of behavior that we all abhor when we observe it in places like Bosnia or Rawanda? Both are pursued for political gain derived from the fear instilled in the public mind.

Why is it that only rarely do we see people stand up to defend the rights of minorities or unpopular people or groups? The ACLU, after all, is regularly attacked by the forces of intolerance, even though it as often as not defends the rights of conservatives or reactionaries to be heard? It is something that one would think we could all agree upon.

I did come across a remarkable exception to this recently when Bill Moyers interviewed the two lawyers – David Bois and Theodore Olsen, archetypical left and right leaning barristers – who are seeking to throw out Proposition 8 in California as unconstitutional by unfairly and unreasonably discriminating against same-sex couples by precluding marriage as an option for them as it is for heterosexual couples.  For those more interested in the trial itself, final arguments for which have been postponed pending an appeal, the live-blogging done by Courage Campaign was (and is) brilliant.

The interview was a remarkable antithesis to the Cheney-Kristol initiative, for it squarely found common ground between the best of the right and the left to assert the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 in California that seeks to make illegal same sex marriage. It was truly a remarkable convergence of two brilliant minds who often attack problems from opposite points of view. Instead, on this issue, they found common ground.

One thing stood out to me as a parent: the effect on kids of the continued, legally-sanctioned, discrimination against the thousands of gay and lesbian couples who conceive with donors or surrogates, or adopt. How anyone could sanction this burden of bias on small children is simply beyond me. I wonder how Liz Cheney views this issue; after all, her lesbian sister is expecting her second child. More to the point, I wonder how Ms. Cheney views the vituperative attacks on both David Bois and Theodore Olsen from the legions of the intolerant who would apparently be fine with seeing her sister live forever as a second class citizen and burden her nephew with the unguided bias he so clearly doesn’t deserve. These are the same folks that want to see the “Gitmo lawyers” run out of the Justice Department.

On your list of things to pay attention to: the final arguments in the Prop 8 case. They should be coming up soon.

A LETTER TO VAN…

Dear Van,

Thanks for taking one for the team. It is so unbelievably absurd to experience the power of the rightwing attack machine, especially when what you are doing is so basically decent, and smart, and intended to help everyone, even the morons who went after you.

We know one thing about dealing with these people. Facts don’t matter. Fear matters. Whatever they can do to twist things to make you into a scary force intent on destroying our way of life, they will do. And they will do it in what Charles Blow so aptly describes as “talking in bumper stickers.” These are the same people who deride the President as being racist, who belittle anyone who tries to address global warming or poverty (not to mention healthcare), and who have literally nothing to offer other than wild conspiracy theories of a vast leftwing plot, though a plot to do what is always vague.

Now that you have stepped down, I wonder whose turn it will be next for the sick game of character assassination directed at pretty much anyone advancing ideas of social justice or sustainability. I agree with many of the voices responding to your resignation – it’s time we stand up against the McCarthyism and hateful speech that’s being thrown our way – and especially yours. It is un-American and anti-democratic.

Anyway, here’s to you and all you stand for in this world. I know you will land somewhere very soon doing critically important work. In the meantime, sleep, rest, and play with the kids. While we all know you didn’t leave to “spend time with the family”, it’s not such a bad idea.

All the best, my friend
Drummond

Madoff. What more is there to say. Pretty soon, we’ll be saying “so-and-so pulled the most amazing ‘madoff.’” Poor Mr. Ponzi may end up being left by the wayside, eclipsed by the shear scale, the unreal duration, and the depth of betrayal exhibited by the now jailed Bernie. But, as we all rue his very birth, I think it worth asking a question about just how and why so many charities and their assets went down the drain.

These charities that invested much or, in the case of several, all their assets with the now notorious Mr. Madoff have exposed just how poorly they oversaw the investment process. Two questions emerge. How could regulators have failed to expose the fraud long before it was made public? Second, are the standards for charities in this regard adequate for the quasi-public nature of charitable funds? The first I will leave to the myriads of people addressing it (though I will be avidly consuming every article I can find on the subject). The second question, though, fascinates me. My conclusion? The answer is a simple “no.”

(more…)

I much enjoyed Pablo Eisenberg’s “A Nonprofit Agenda for the Next President” in the 10/30 issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Nice piece. I even agree with many of the six major points he raises as an agenda for the sector with the next president. But he ends with what, to me, is by far the most important point….”Maintain a strong advocacy role,” and you have to read a long way through to get there. For me, that’s the most important thing the non-profit sector can do. Speak up!

There is a certain civility that extends throughout the sector, sometimes to our detriment. Perhaps it is born of the privileged class of people who create private philanthropies, or maybe it is because the independent sector is so fearful of the government adversely reacting to criticism, but, whatever the antecedents, nonprofits are painfully polite. So when Pablo leaves until last the idea that advocacy from the sector to address the real social ills that we care about, he seems to fall into this pattern.

Instead, I wish he had led with the idea that, with a new administration, NOW is the time to make clear what we hold to be critical, and the ideas we have been working on for how best to address those things. Jim Josephs, whose tenure with the Council on Foundations brought some of the best we have ever seen from that organization, used to talk about the role of philanthropy as being “society’s ‘R&D’ department.” I loved that analogy, for it gave in such a simple fashion, a clear mission for us all. We have the privilege of sitting outside the tax system and, in response, we have an affirmative role to play in solving some of our most challenging problems. We have the resources to think, to experiment, and to imagine new solutions. We also have an obligation to act on them.

So, rather than respectfully asking for an office in the White House, I’d far rather see Bob Greenstein (Center on Budget and Policy Priority) publicly calling for HIS ideas for a new approach to taxation, or Cecile Richards (Planned Parenthood) offering new ideas on how to make reproductive health services broadly available, or Rand Beers (National Security Network) suggesting some viable ways to change our military engagement in the Middle East. That all comes first. Then, well after suggesting a higher payout for foundations, we could say it would be nice to have an office in the White House to help give the sector a higher profile, better accountability, and the like.