In 1983, as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Bernie Sanders took the stage before the United Way, and admitted “I don’t believe in charities.” Although this position appears diametrically opposed to my opinion from which the title to this diary is drawn, the Senator was absolutely right — later explaining “Most of them were conservative Republicans busy cutting services to low-income people. Then they go collect nickels and dimes, mostly from working people, and congratulate each other on their generosity. I find that hypocritical.”
Sanders has a great ability for summarizing the flaws of the world as it is. Charity must never be an excuse for governmental neglect of its basic function ensuring the social contract. To the extent that nonprofit work facilitates government complacency or persuades the privileged that the masses are adequately tended, that form of charity is undeniably regressive. We are periodically reminded of this danger when prominent Republican figures call for the elimination of social programs in favor or charitable relief.
International charity carries its own dangers of unintended consequences and misplaced motives. From the New York Times:
Sometimes, volunteering even causes real harm. Research in South Africa and elsewhere has found that “orphan tourism” — in which visitors volunteer as caregivers for children whose parents died or otherwise can’t support them — has become so popular that some orphanages operate more like opportunistic businesses than charities, intentionally subjecting children to poor conditions in order to entice unsuspecting volunteers to donate more money.
From the Guardian:
Voluntourism almost always involves a group of idealistic and privileged travelers who have vastly different socio-economic statuses vis–à–vis those they serve. They often enter these communities with little or no understanding of the locals' history, culture, and ways of life. All that is understood is the poverty and the presumed neediness of the community, and for the purposes of volunteering, that seems to be enough. In my own experiences – also highlighted by the author of the article – this has led to condescending and superficial relationships that transform the (usually western) volunteer into a benevolent giver and the community members into the ever grateful receivers of charity. It makes for an extremely uncomfortable dynamic in which one begins to wonder if these trips are designed more for the spiritual fulfillment of the volunteer rather than the alleviation of poverty.
In the world we have, charity is a flawed system we adopt to assuage the failures of government to work for the common good. I think many progressives recognize that system, and practice some healthy skepticism of nonprofit efficacy.
Still, my statement of belief in charity as an ethical goal and the implication of Bernie Sanders’ disbelief may both be correct. The best possible world we could imagine and the best possible government (except for all the others) would still fail to respond to human needs with equal innovation and precision to a nonprofit, simply given political inertia. A representative democracy may certainly protect the rights of a minority, but a majority will always be slow to meet the needs of the rest. Progressives should be rightfully skeptical of charity, but also accept its basic good.
May of these thoughts elaborate on comments I made in a rec-listed diary a couple days back that addressed Hillary Clinton’s charitable giving to the Clinton Foundation. I was primarily concerned with two passages therein, namely:
Oh yeah, and charitable contributions. The Clintons gave $22,700 to unaffiliated charities. That is 0.08% of their income.* The Sanders gave $8,350 or over 4% to charity.
and, following the asterisk to its footnote:
Oh yeah, the Clintons also also gave 3 million to their own foundation. Except it’s really tough to separate the foundation from political activity. The Clinton Foundation hosts a lot of summits, conferences and cocktail parties around the world, mostly for folks who’re in the Clinton’s tax bracket. In 2013, they spent more on travel, events and meetings ($38 million), than on the signature program of funding medical supplies via UNITAID ($29 million).
…
In any case, I’m not going to count it as a charitable contribution. It’s something in between, kind of like the fact that Bernie helped pay for his niece’s wedding. You may wish to argue over it in the comments.
On the first point, I disagreed with the decision to ignore ~11% of the Clintons’ income that had clearly been taken out of their assets and put to a charitable cause. The diarist eventually conceded that its inclusion would have been warranted if given to an organization identical to the CF in operation, but lacking the name and affiliation (i.e. it is only the acclaim and influence they receive through the affiliation that allegedly justifies the exclusion).
On the second point, I noted that the “ travel, events, and meetings” comparison to UNITAID had conveniently selected a specific year of the CF financial disclosure to appear unfavorable. I also noted later that the $29 million number addressed only the “UNITAID commodities expense.” The 2013 expenditure on the relevant program, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, totaled $127,781,347 on a mission to fight disease in 33 countries around the globe, in circumstances where local government is unable to meet the need. Travel, meetings, and training, represented in that $38 million total above, include essential operations of an international nonprofit. Indeed, 2013 CF program services accounted for 88.4% of expenditures, with management and fundraising accounting for the remainder. Although the diarist’s above-quoted numbers are clearly misleading at best and outright dishonest at worst, they remained unedited. My comments apparently merited a call-out in the diarist’s most recent missive, again at the top of the rec-list:
- If you say donations to a tax-exempt foundation with the candidates name on the door might not be equivalent to donations to an unaffiliated charity, we consider those to be “demonstrably false attacks” . So what if the foundation supports your political endeavors by providing a revolving door for staff/donors/attendees for your campaign?
I could have said worse.
This is how the Clinton Foundation spent its money in 2013:
- $127,781,347 on the aforementioned Clinton Health Access Initiative
- $23,684,078 on the Clinton Global Initiative, an effort to link political leaders, nonprofits and businesses.
- $12,288,987 on the Clinton Presidential Center
- $8,406,801 on the Clinton Climate Initiative, that works on such topics as fighting deforestation, renewable energy infrastructure, and energy efficiency.
- $5,039,288 on the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, supporting businesses in developing countries.
- $2,575,401 on the Clinton Development Initiative, bolstering agriculture in East Africa.
- $1,676,729 to the Clinton Health Matters Initiative, promoting various health programs in the U.S.
These are humane matters we profess to believe in, hereabouts. To the extent that staff involved with these causes thereafter work in government on related topics… well… that’s the idea. If you’re concerned we might politically reward a leader who demonstrates broad involvement with improving human lives that would otherwise be neglected, that, too, seems a rational response. The efficacy of international nonprofits must receive constant scrutiny, and any diplomatic entanglements must meet a high standard of transparency and the avoidance of conflict of interest. These are potential criticisms we should readily address… but the pages of dailykos should not be a venue for demonstrably-false attacks through selective, dishonest statistics and self-serving, inconsistent criteria.