Notes from the Left Coast

Drummond Pike’s Blog

I came to Yokohama, the historical port for Tokyo, to give a talk about our new GreenSpace enterprise to support development of new green, Nonprofit Centers. The occasion is the “TBLI” (Triple Bottom Line) Conference that occurs regularly each year in Europe and Asia.

The trip turned into a wonderful opportunity to reprise my time in Japan nine years ago, lecturing to those active in the nascent movement to create a nonprofit sector in Japan. A new law was passed in 1998 creating the possibility for these corporate structures which hadn’t previously existed in Japan. Since, there have been three refinements in the law, and there is much work being done to expand the applicability for tax deductibility. Only some 300 NPO’s are deductible out of the 36,000 that have been formed, and there are other aspects to the question of establishing clear boundaries for appropriate NPO activity in the advocacy sphere. It’s a vibrant time in this small sector of Japanese social landscape, and it holds so much potential.

One of the most interesting conversations I had was with Professor Kanji Tanimoto and a small seminar group at Hitotsubashi University (in Tokyo) comprised mainly of executives with multi-nationals and banks (Microsoft, HSBC, etc.). We spent a good deal of time talking about Katherine Fulton’s premise that the for-profit and nonprofit sectors are converging toward each other. The old paradigm where business really ONLY cared about the bottom line is giving way to a new paradigm where success in business may in fact be more linked to practices that incorporate ESG (environmental, social, and governance) aspects into HOW businesses do business. In Japan, it would seem, the NPO sector can play a role in working with businesses to embrace this emerging awareness.

This discussion was a wonderful connector back to the TBLI Conference that had brought me to Japan in the first place. More on that in another blog post.  Let it suffice to say that while our friends on the right continue to see Tides and progressives in a very limited light, there is an expanding and fascinating world out there in the business community that ties together strands of creative private enterprise and deep commitments to addressing social justice and global sustainability. The inanity – and occasional tragedy (witness the assassination of Dr. Tiller) – of the right / left divide simply must give way to a new synthesis.

Japan has unique characteristics as a society – a very different and non-western society – that may enable it to make significant contributions to this evolving possibility. A more homogeneous society, Japanese have the ability to forge a new consensus and move quickly to pursue implications of a changing awareness.

A week ago, I attended the Global Progressive Forum, organized by Poul Ryup Rasmussen, former Prime Minister of Denmark and held in the Parliamentary hall of the European Union – an amazing space for such an event. It is called the Hemicycle and is a large oval space surrounded by 3 floors of “sky booths” containing the translators who were borrowed from the EU for the purposes of this two-day session. For an American, at least of my generation, it is with some embarrassment that I watched many of the representatives from various African, South American, Asian, and European countries in a facile way move between languages depending on who their audience happened to be. Me, I was consigned to grabbing the earphones whenever the speakers departed from English. (I’m happy to say that both of my children have avoided the mono-linguistic shortcomings of their father…)

A second, equally simple, observation at the GPF was the comfort that virtually the entire rest of the planet has with the idea of socialism and, perhaps more to the point, social democratic systems where the state plays a far more important role ensuring the social welfare of all its citizens and workers. America’s often outright hostility and deep skepticism of the role of government – not to mention the idea that government can be as well run an enterprise as any private organization of similar scale – has confused me for years. After all, my parents generation benefitted from the astonishingly successful governmental intervention in both the domestic economy and in international relations with more success than any other period in modern history. Government was the answer to the Depression and to the rise of fascism across the globe. No private enterprise could have achieved either outcome, much less had the foresight that was the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Japan and Korea. Yes, and the same generation was on duty when Vietnam happened and the Cold War flourished, but as a whole, there were an awful lot of good things about that era, and one has to think we may well be headed into a similar time. Lord knows, there are as many compelling challenges on the table.

May we live in interesting times.

The Global Progressive Forum is a bit like the Take Back America conference has been over recent years in the US – a collection of activists, elected officials, and academics who all share a concern for how to move things back in a more progressive direction.  Europe, as many are aware, has been on a march to the right. Of course, everything is relative. The right in this context means a more conservative interpretation of European style social democracy.  By contrast to the US, Merkel’s and Sarkozy’s conservatism is downright leftist. Rush Limbaugh would choke just trying to say the word when describing Europe’s version of a safety net. He’d probably call it ‘communist’ or something which isn’t terribly far from the truth, again in contrast to the US experience.

One of the most interesting things to emerge from this two-day gathering held in the chambers of the European Parliament, has been the repeated raising of concerns about tax havens and the role they have played in the melt-down. This isn’t well understood in the US, but the movement of capital and income through tax-haven subsidiaries was a contributing factor in low accountability, but also in avoidance of tax. As everyone is desperate for revenue, there is some possibility that taking on this beast will become a signal call from many for how future reforms need to be structured.

One speaker noted yesterday that if one has to rely, as is currently the case, on agreements between two countries to manage tax reporting and reciprocity, the number of countries in the world would require some 18,000 agreements. Not likely.  However, a truly international regime – like the WTO, for example – could be put in place, perhaps required for participation in WTO or some such. A fascinating idea.

One other surprise, speaking of the WTO, has been that the Secretary General of the WTO, Pascal Lamy, is an honored member of this community and will be speaking tomorrow. Who knew he was one of these socialist leaning Europeans? It does make one wonder if we have got this all right – our American blanket critique of trade which we typically see as benefitting corporate interests over poor people. What appears to be more the case is that we just haven’t got it right yet. True, corporate interests have got a great deal of what they want out of trade deals, but the same mechanisms can be used for much more positive social impacts, if we just have the will.

It is an interesting contrast from the American experience to travel in Europe.

They have this thing called “mass transit” which most of us in the US associate with behemoth SUV’s – very large mass transporting us from our sprawled suburban homes to the mall or school or the office park where we work. And every time we need a carton of milk, it’s back into that huge gas guzzler and back on the road to the convenience store down the road. Now, of course it is true that many eastern cities (NY, Washington, Boston, Philly) all have aging subway systems that are well used. But for most of us, transit is us sitting at the driver’s wheel, frustrated at the slow moving mass of cars ahead and behind us.

Night before last, I flew to London, cleared customs in 20 minutes, caught an express train to downtown (it left 6 minutes after I got to the platform), and 20 minutes later I was at Paddington Station. Then it was a 15 minute ride on the “tube” to , a 40 minute wait for the Eurostar Train – a highspeed, quiet, comfortable ride for less than 2 hours to Brussels via the Channel where I arrived in downtown maybe 10 minutes from my hotel. The thing that I couldn’t get over was that it was all so EASY.

As we stumble our way toward decisions on what to do with the stimulus investments we are about to make in the US, investing in transit seems like such a sensible thing to do. We are so unbelievably behind most parts of the world, but we also have the opportunity to design a system that can truly meet future needs.

California will soon begin work on a high-speed train network to connect the northern, southern, and central metropolitan areas. Let’s add in a really robust Bus Rapid Transit system (which can be shovel ready very quickly), create metropolitan planning and management districts, and all the other elements we need to create a robust, green, and smart road to the future.

Also of interest:
TreeHugger.org  articles on High Speed Trains

According to news reports and analysis the Bush Administration believes it reasonable for the people’s employees in the Executive branch to be permanently exempt from having to testify before the people’s representatives about their activities while in office….even long after they have departed the government. The matter at hand has to do with Harriett Miers and Karl Rove and the Congressional inquiry into the famous firings of US Attorneys who failed what is largely understood to be a test of partisanship. That US Attorneys are supposed to be above the partisan fray in upholding federal law would hardly seem controversial, but for the past 8 years, we’ve seen the most severe challenges to this idea one can recall.This is a matter where I think the progressive community must speak up. It is not clear that the Obama White House, so clearly wanting to “look forward,” will want to see John Conyers and others pursue these matters. But there is such an important principle at stake – the fundamental balance of powers. If members of the Executive Branch cannot be held to account, especially after any vulnerability to executive action has ceased with advent of a new administration, we might indeed end up with the “imperial presidency” as some characterized the Bush/Cheney regime.We should watch for the outcome of the US Court of Appeals case involving Harriett Meirs and Josh Bolton on the US Attorney’s firing inquiry in the House. They have asserted this “absolute” privilege and the new Administration will have to present their position on privilege at this early moment in their tenure. Something worth speaking up on, that’s for sure.

For years, we’ve lived with this crazy idea put forth by conservatives that “class warfare” is a terrible thing that Democrats often fall back on and it only divides America. In January, 2003, then-President Bush decried critics of his tax cut proposals as agents of “class warfare,” despite the diminutive response the proposals were receiving from the opposition. It was an aggressive, in-your-face statement that set the stage for the bi-elections later that year. What would have been more appropriate would have been for him to be talking into a mirror, for few can now doubt what Bob Borosage of the Campaign for America’s Future has been arguing for years – namely that the signature accomplishment of the Bush years has been to drastically weaken the lot of working Americans. Everything from tax cuts that gave 90% of the benefits to the already wealthy to coddling of Wall Street at every possible opportunity that arose, most notably in the deregulating of the financial markets. 

In many ways, we have been at this since “supply-sider” Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency. He quite straightforwardly sought to shrink government while embracing the free market cheerleaders who believe in unfettered markets. Tax cuts became the answer to everything. Reduced federal spending was close behind. Outside of the military, real progress in the evolution of governance in America came to a standstill for the past 28 years. So perhaps it is no great surprise that the barons of Wall Street are having a bit of difficulty adjusting. One loves the story about John Thain, recently dethroned from Merrill Lynch after revelations that he spent $1.2 million of the firms money to “redo” his office about a year ago. While the meltdown hadn’t taken full force then, it was well understood that the financial giant was in trouble and had been losing money for some time. It has, of course, ended up in the dumps, recently purchased for a song by B of A. What I love about the story is the simple idea that he apparently thought the role to model (as all CEO’s realize that role modeling is a core requirement) was that of potentate not worker bee. Having an antique “commode” worth tens of thousands of dollars somehow conveyed a message he cared about. 

Thain is hardly alone. It seems as though the titans of industry, whose bonuses long ago departed any connection to the overall financial performance of their companies, view the ascension to pinnacle roles as a license to take all they can get away with. Reading that 2008 Wall Street bonuses amounted to some $18.4 billion in the worst financial period since the Great Depression is simply astonishing. If not illegal, it is certainly the moral equivalent of stealing. So, I say a pox on all their houses. Let’s “claw back” everything we can, but let’s also bring these people back to earth. Maybe establish a legal limit on the ratio of highest paid to lowest paid employees? In my organization that ratio is about 8 to 1. So the non-profit world is a bit different. Let’s set it for 20 to 1 in the for profit world. I bet there would be a lot more well paid folks on the low end of the scale. So, what was wrong with the idea of class warfare?

I’m a good way into Timothy Egan’s excellent The Worst Hard Time, a history of the Dust Bowl and its survivors, those gritty people who hung on and lived through one of the worst man-made disasters of all time. It truly is an amazing tale. First, how the boom in wheat prices drove speculators and real estate sharpies to plow up the prairie for perceived short term profits, and then kept plowing up more ground to compensate for falling prices as the market got saturated. Banks, largely unregulated at the time, took depositors’ funds and invested them in the frenzy, leading to the failure of thousands of banks. And then, the drought hit and went on for 6 years. No rain and scant snow across vast areas of northern Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere. And the land just blew away. Dust storms were so thick, drivers had to navigate from one telephone pole to the next. In less than a decade, people in the mid-west subdivided cattle ranches into homesteads, ripped up the grass for wheat, briefly made huge profits, and then sank into inexorable poverty as the rains deserted them, and the soil took flight.

Though Egan doesn’t focus on politics much, it is interesting when he does. Hoover, elected in 1928, declared in an early address, “Americans are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of the land.” Then, as the Dust Bowl and collapse of the stock market took their toll, Hoover was forever saying that we are about to turn the corner back to prosperity, as though his wish for it would make it so. “All the evidences indicate that the worst effects of the crash on unemployment will have passed during the next sixty days,” he declared on March 3, 1930 (p. 95). Egan goes on, “By the end of that year, eight million people were out of work. The banking system was in chaos. The big financial institutions had once looked invincible, with the stone fronts, the copper lights, the marbled floors, run by the best people in town. Now bankers were seen as crooks, fraud artists who took people’s homes, their farms, and their savings. In 1930, 1350 banks failed….The next year, 2294 banks went bust.” The political seachange that occurred in 1932 was unlike any other we saw in the 20th Century.

I’ve been thinking about Egan’s book as I listen to the many convention speeches about what is right and what is wrong with America from the perspective of the two major parties. Democrats see a people who need more from their government. They seem to want a government that plays a balancing role by regulating markets, a government that provides opportunity and a safety net, and a government that works. Republicans seem to want less government, less taxes, and less regulation of business, despite their record of having grown government with huge deficits over recent years. It was fascinating indeed to watch their Vice Presidential candidate decry special interest funding while she has pursued earmarks in Washington for her city and hired lobbyists to garner a share at the federal trough.

It would be very difficult to argue that we face in 2008 circumstances even remotely like those of 1931 when a quarter of the population was unemployed. Our economy may not be zipping along, but it is not in the tank (despite the best efforts of the sub-prime lending hustlers). The challenge, though, is how to galvanize public action on two related issues that will require a political shift in will as occurred with the election of Roosevelt in 1932; those issues are climate change and energy independence. Right now, it doesn’t seem likely that those issues will affect the election much in one way or another, but if you talk with any experts in those fields, the globe must curtail the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or the climate system will spin out of control with unforeseeable results – mostly catastrophic, one might imagine.

Somehow, chants such as one heard last night – “Drill, baby, drill!!!” – seem unlikely to move us in the right direction.

One of the perennial debates in the funding community revolves around the question of boundaries and role with regard to the groups we fund. Are we venture capitalists where, by virtue of the grants we have made, we have a seat at the table? Should we insist on an E.D. stepping down if we observe poor performance? Should we withhold further funding until changes we believe warranted become reality? Let’s call this the “venture” model, as many have done.

Or, should we see ourselves in a more passive role, financing the work of organizations, holding them accountable to stated goals and objectives, and observing weaknesses with constructive suggestions on what they might do? Let’s call this the “supportive” model.
(more…)

I’ve spent the last couple of months working harder, and more excitedly, on something than I ever have, at least so far as my aging, addled memory can recall. It is, believe it or not, all about a repurposed conference that Tides has done a couple of times before. Momentum. Now, you might ask, why in the world would a normal person get so exercised about organizing a conference? Here’s why.

I graduated from college in 1970 in the middle of Nixon’s first term (he was impeached during his 2nd). At the time, the Woodstock generation was in ascendancy and grinding through a social change agenda as though ordained by the gods. Civil rights had finally come to people of color, farmworkers had succeeded in forming a union (still hard fought by agribusiness), the women’s movement was emerging as a force to change seemingly intractable traditions, and the Vietnam War seemed to linger just to remind us why attaining and exercising power was so important. For me personally, Bobby Kennedy’s race in 1968 inspired a sense of what was possible, despite his tragic assassination. Looking forward, at 21, to the coming years, I was so certain that our generation was going to transform American society into an enlightened, tolerant, moral force in the world. How could it not? (more…)

Wade Rathke has done something some would never have predicted. Resigned as ACORN’s Chief Organizer. Who ever would have imagined?

I met Wade in 1972, as best I can recall. Marge Tabankin and I were running the Youth Project (she was my boss) and had developed a bit of a competition to find the most impressive new organizers “out there.” The YP, begun in the Center for Community Change’s basement, was an operation to leverage foundation $$ into community organizing that involved young people – an attempt to bring the national movements of the day down into the everyday lives of disenfranchised communities. I came up with Mike Miller from Organize, Inc. in SF – a skilled, talented follower of Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation approach: parish based, working class organizing. Alinsky had defined the field in many ways and his Rules for Radicals was found on the shelves of an entire college generation at the time. Margie’s choice was this kid named Wade Rathke.
(more…)