Loading summary
Transcript47 lines
- [00:02]
Tanya Allen
Any narrative that is being used to weaken what philanthropy is, is destructive. It is so important that we clarify and get that inaccuracy taken off record.
- [00:18]
Grace Nicollette
Welcome to Getting Done Right. I'm Grace Nicollette.
- [00:21]
Phil Buchanan
And I'm Phil Buchanan.
- [00:22]
Grace Nicollette
Today we have two guests joining us. Tanya Allen, President of the McKnight foundation, and John Palfrey, president of the John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. We wanted to have Tan and John together on the show because we're interested in what they're thinking about right now and what philanthropic leadership looks like. We've particularly admired their efforts to defend philanthropy and civil society during this time. Welcome, Tanya and John.
- [00:45]
Tanya Allen
Thanks for having us.
- [00:46]
John Palfrey
Thank you, Grace. Thank you, Phil.
- [00:48]
Phil Buchanan
Yeah, it's great to be with you both. And I have long admired both of you as foundation leaders. And there's so much that we could talk about that would be relevant to our audience. But let's start with this Unite in.
- [01:02]
Phil (Buchanan)
Advance effort, if we could.
- [01:04]
Phil Buchanan
Our audience is individual donors as well as some folks who work at foundations. And obviously the Unite in Advance effort is a foundation focused initiative. But can you tell us, what is it? Why did you start it? Who's in it? Why should everyday donors care about it? And how's it going? So let's start with a half dozen questions, but you could just start with the first one, like, what is it? What are you all trying to do in this, in this challenging context through this effort?
- [01:34]
Tanya Allen
I think what Unite in Advance is simply is donors, organized donors, foundations organizing behind our ability to give and our ability to invest. We believe that philanthropy and charitable giving is an American tradition, and we want to protect that American tradition. We think that it's a part of our First Amendment right. We think it's such an American tradition, and we think it may be under attack. And so why we decided to organize ourselves is to make sure that we have an ability to defend that right. And we know that philanthropy, the organizations, the foundations, are the way that most people understand charitable giving in an institutionalized way. And so I would say to your listeners, those who are in philanthropic organizations, who are, we are representing institutions like you. And then I think for your individual donors, we are representing your interest, too. We want to make sure that every citizen, be they operating on behalf of their family or just even themselves or an institution, that you have the right to give, that your giving should be able to reflect your values, regardless of what your ideological views are, that you as an American citizen should be able to hug your First Amendment rights and to be able to give in the way that you choose to in alignment with your values and that they should be protected. And that's what United in Advance is about. It's just about showing that philanthropic rights are an important right and that we want to make sure that we're protecting them.
- [03:19]
John Palfrey
I would maybe just add a bit of the context in history. Why is it called Unite in Advance? And this is the spirit of what Timothy Snyder said, don't obey in advance. And so what we're encouraging our group to do is to spend this time and this period to say, what are the values that join us in a nonpartisan, cross ideological way. And we have really rested on this part of the First Amendment or really the whole of the First Amendment. But that is our freedom to give and our freedom to invest according to our values. And so we're reaching out to individual donors, as you said, to organize philanthropies to anybody who believes in this American tradition and the need to stand up for it, make the case for it, and make the case for what our incredible grantee partners are doing every day in community. So anyway, that's what we're up to, and we welcome additional people to join us in this effort.
- [04:08]
Grace Nicollette
John and Tanya, I imagine a lot of the donors who've been listening to us may not be fully clued in into sort of the threats that you're talking about. Channeling one voice particularly could say, well, who's against charitable giving? I mean, what's so controversial about that? Can you explain a little bit? Like, what is this in response to? Like, what are the threats that you're seeing?
- [04:29]
Tanya Allen
Well, I think there are several kinds of threats. Right. One is that earlier this year we saw legislative proposals that look to tax our field more. Of course, we're not against paying taxes, but when you start to see taxation rise at 8,900% more, that is over taxation. And I think every American is against that. And then I think more recently, we've heard commentary that has been specifically about mischaracterizing political violence and associating it with philanthropy, suggesting that political violence is being funded by philanthropic organizations. And that is not accurate. And we want to make sure that be super clear about that. Like, one, political violence is wrong, period. There is no support for that in any way by any sector, and particularly no sector of philanthropy. Two, want to be super clear that philanthropy is not a political entity. It is not partisan in any form or fashion. Philanthropy does not support political violence, any network of political violence. And we reject that mischaracterization 100%. So it is extraordinarily important that we come out united, pushing back against that narrative because, you know, those narratives can get legs under them and people can begin to believe that. And so it's really important that we are clear that any mischaracterization of philanthropy weakens philanthropy. It weakens the good that we do in society. It weakens our brand. It weakens people's understanding of how we act and how we contribute to our civil society. And so we want to make sure that any narrative that is being used to weaken what philanthropy is, is destructive, and that it is so important that we clarify and get that inaccuracy taken off record.
- [06:44]
Phil (Buchanan)
I would just point out we're recording on September 19th.
- [06:48]
Phil Buchanan
So we're about a week and a.
- [06:51]
Phil (Buchanan)
Half past the terrible assassination of Charlie Kirk and just days from various efforts by members of the administration, the presidential administration, to try to draw this completely absurd and spurious line between so called liberal groups, even naming some big foundations, and political violence, which is absurd in my view, and an obvious pretext. John, you invoked Timothy Snyder, who of course is a scholar of authoritarianism. You know, do you believe that we are in an authoritarian regime now, that we are there, that we're headed there? How do you see it?
- [07:40]
John Palfrey
Well, Phil, first of all, let me just also take the chance, as Tanya did, to say the absolute and total clear statement that we abhor political violence of any sort, regardless of who is targeted and, you know, whichever side of the island. Of course, the. The murder of Charlie Kirk is unacceptable and not something that we at MacArthur foundation or I, you know, support in any way, shape or form, of course, and really believe this is a time when we need to come together as a country. Onto your question about authoritarianism, I'd like not to find out, which is to say that there are hallmarks of what we're all seeing that are heading in that direction. And I think there's a time here where as Americans, we can come together around the traditions and values that Tanya talked about. You know, we fought a war against the king a couple hundred years ago, or some people did, you know, in order to enshrine the values that we have in our Constitution. And I would say at the unite and advance level, what we're for is the rule of law. What we're for is those same values that, you know, we. We have not lived into them fully. We have not lived them for every American, but we have been a work in progress of a sort that I'm very proud of personally, but I don't want to backslide. I don't want to erode those values. I don't want to find out what an authoritarian version of America would look like. And so we're really just standing up for the Constitution. We're standing up for the rule of law. We're standing up for the First Amendment. And in our case, on behalf of our grantees, on behalf of you as grantees, CEP, in fact, of MacArthur and I'm sure Mike Knight and others, you know, we are standing up for all of our rights to do our good work unbothered by the federal government, other than the obvious things we have to do with the IRS and so forth. So that is absolutely core to why Tanya and I are spending as much time as we are talking to the American people, going to communities across this country to spread the good word about what philanthropy does, what nonprofit partners do, and why that's so important to the American story.
- [09:29]
Phil Buchanan
We should say that we work with both of your foundations as clients, and we also have received grant support from both of you for which we're grateful. And you sort of invoked the larger sector. There has been some critique of foundations, and I'll admit I've worried a little bit about this myself as being at times it's hard to generalize because foundations are, you know, a diverse group, but as perhaps overly narrowly focused on protection of themselves as institutions. And some concern from some nonprofit leaders, some grantees, that there isn't a more unified defense of the sector, inclusive of donors and nonprofits. I don't know if that is a critique that rings true to you at all, but just to explain, there are nonprofit leaders who say, look, we are reeling. Many of us have lost federal funds. Others of us are very worried about losing federal funds. We saw overwhelming concern in a survey we did in February. We have another survey in the field right now, folks, expressing deep concern about even the safety and security of their staff and those they serve in pretty big numbers. And so there have been calls for funders to speak out more. And John and Tanya, I know you've been doing just that to step up spending levels and as I said, to chart a defense that is inclusive of both the operating nonprofits and funders. Is that what you're doing? Or are you more narrowly focused on foundations and proposals like the excise tax increase that you were able to fight back, or is it all of the above?
- [11:23]
John Palfrey
All of the above 100%? Phil and I certainly share your view, and I want to commend to anyone who hasn't read the CEP Survey of nonprofits and the very good follow ups that you commissioned for others to write about you and Alicia, I think, were the authors of that initially. And it's very, very important for us to keep listening to the good work of CEP and the critiques of us in the field. All well received as critiques. So spending more, yes, we can and should. Both McKnight and MacArthur have both increased our payouts and are well above the IRS minimum. And we encourage absolutely everybody to do that. And there are certainly those woods fund Chicago at 15%. Wherever there are others who are much, much higher for Nikkei, they give them enormous credit. There are all sorts of things in terms of reducing grantee burdens that we need to do, and you guys have made that so clear in terms of general operating support, reducing burdens of reporting, renewal, all those things. So I don't want to skip over the things that are within our control as foundations that we need to do now more than ever. And you mentioned this very important cross sectoral work. And Tanya and I are deeply committed to making sure that the things that we are talking about are supportive of, inclusive of our nonprofit grantees and those who are not our grantees, but are doing this incredible work in the charitable nonprofit sector. I see us as totally connected. So if you think about the work the Council of Foundations is doing, independent sector, a national council of nonprofits, all of those bodies are, I think, thinking together as in terms of making the case, as, you know, in essence, the trade associations for us. And then I think all of us have to play our position. And Tani and I have decided to do so in this unite in advance way, but also to fund efforts by our colleagues to make the case for themselves and to make sure that the way in which we're doing that. So all of the critiques you mentioned are completely accepted and we will take more and try to improve our game. And this is one we haven't missed, which is I think that there is a very good and connected set and we can do more along those lines.
- [13:14]
Tanya Allen
And I would also just say we've been thinking about this as a full civil society approach and we have been working alongside nonprofit partners the full time. So of course we have decided that our best role is organizing philanthropic organizations, but that organizing is in alignment with other parts of our sector that are organizing themselves. Where are the places that we need to reinforce our sector to be able to show up strongly across the board? So this is a sectoral response, and the sectoral response is not just about philanthropic organizations that give money. It's about those that serve community across the board, nonprofit and foundations and the like. I know that there are so many organizations that are worried about. Our world has become completely unstabilized. And I think the challenge is, is that we can't protect the status quo. There's no way that any of us can protect the status quo. We cannot fight for the status quo. I think what we're trying to fight for is a future that doesn't exist, and so there's no way any of us can go and fill the gaps for federal funding that is going away. Phil, you have made this case so many times about how philanthropic capital can't fill the whole federal dollars. So what we have to be thinking about is what is the future that we're actually fighting for, and what is that gonna look like? And I think that that's a painful reality that we're living in right now, is that we're actually fighting to preserve a set of rights and fighting to preserve what we thought that we would never have to fight for, the rule of law, our amendments and all of those things, while we're also trying to hold tight to a vision of a future that some people don't even know or believe can still exist. And I think that's the struggle, and that's the reality that we're in. And I still believe that that hope is possible, and that's what we're trying to do in this moment.
- [15:29]
Phil Buchanan
I mean, I think it is both inarguably, factually true that philanthropy can't fill those gaps. And I also worry that with some, not with the two of you whose institutions have stepped up giving, there's almost like a binary. Like, so, therefore, we can't do anything about this. But in fact, there are opportunities to say, like, where are the greatest needs? Where are the biggest gaps? What are the most essential functions that we do need to shore up in this time? So I just want to clarify my own perspective on this, which is kind of both.
- [16:05]
Grace Nicollette
And I imagine that there might be folks traditionally on the right that would also really affirm what you all are describing. Right. We're not talking about the government playing a big role in our society. We're talking about, like, civil society itself and the ability for donors to choose what they give to and the pluralism that comes with, you know, individuals getting to choose what they care about and investing there. Have you found strange bedfellows or sort of folks who are coming together? Because I'm just struck by how the Critiques from the administration are specifically targeting foundations that are perceived to be progressive or on the left. But what I hear you all describing is something that we should all be able to get behind, right? So can you talk a little bit to that?
- [16:51]
John Palfrey
No question, everything you just said is true, which is we are speaking about something that we so happen to believe. But speaking about something that we believe can join all Americans, all Americans who are thinking about wanting to be in the same country that we have been creating for hundreds of years and really just standing up for long held American values and traditions. And there's no question when we talk to people who are Catholic givers who want to ensure that their values are spread, we may not, you know, any one of our members of our coalition may not agree with Catholic values per se, but they absolutely join in this point about being able to give. A lot of people in the religious community certainly take that point of view in the political setting. Just as you said, traditionally the right has been very supportive of free speech rights. I have been struck by people this week such as Tucker Carlson, Karl Rove, who are standing up for the right for free expression and many people who are looking at encroachments on the media as an example, which I think are deeply related to what we're talking about as saying, you know, this is not what America's about. I think that there is room here for us to join together and say we are going to disagree on policy and in fact we should. That's what a democracy is all about. That's what this American republic is all about. Even Tanya and I are pretty similar, I think politically. But even the two of us, we disagree on stuff, right? But we're friends and we can come from very different backgrounds in different cities and different families and we can be close in the way that I think the American people want this, I think want to be able to come together around the kind of country that we have. So we are going exactly grace at what you're describing. And we welcome those from across the ideological spectrum to join us in making this case.
- [18:34]
Phil Buchanan
Hey there. We'll be right back.
- [18:53]
Podcast Advertiser
Too many great orgs to choose from. Can't decide where to donate. That's why just fund built the Democracy Impact Fund. One donation fuels hundreds of grassroots groups building long term power. No guesswork, just impact. Join us@justfundimpact.com hey there.
- [19:12]
Kendra Adachi
I'm Kendra Adachi and my show the Lazy Genius podcast helps you be a genius about the things that matter and lazy about the things that don't. And you get to decide what matters. I'm not here to tell you what to do. I'm here to give you a new way to see. Episodes of the Lazy Genius podcast are full of compassionate time management tips and permission slips to do what makes sense for you. New episodes drop every Monday. Follow and listen to the Lazy Genius podcast on the free Odyssey app or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [19:43]
Grace Nicollette
What does that specifically look like to join you all? Like, if I'm an individual donor and I am concerned about what I'm seeing happening, traditionally, you know, that has meant maybe I give to particular candidates, continue to invest in my community, but what's the call for donors right now?
- [20:01]
Tanya Allen
I think what it means is that we're asking people to just be in alignment around a set of core ideas, be committed to solidarity with other donors who believe in the right to be able to speak and share your values, the right to give and the right to be able to invest. And that is essentially what Unite in Advance is about. We're not requiring anyone to do anything but be in agreement with those sets of values. And we give people and propose to people sets of actions that they can execute if they'd like to do that in alignment with others. But it's everyone's free choice or will to be able to do that. And so people choose to act and behave however they would like in alignment with what their values are and in alignment with the activities or the ways that their institutions are most comfortable. And what we find is that every institution finds something that they feel comfortable enough to do and that actually fits based on the type and style of an institution or the type and style of an individual donor, and also the type and style of the ideology of an organization. There is a role for every institution, if you believe in this ideology, that the First Amendment should rule when it comes to philanthropy, that there's a place for you. That's the community we're trying to create with United, and that's what we want people to do, is to feel welcome here. You may not agree with everything we do, but you should agree with the value. Because everything that is being done is not done by the soul of United in Vance, it's done by different members. And it's space for each of us and all of us to be able to show up and to be able to express those sets of values.
- [21:56]
John Palfrey
Also, the prompt grace of what would an individual be urged to do at this moment is interesting. It's not actually really what we've thought all that much about But I'll offer two things. One would be let us know that you're interested in. We'd love to talk to you about it. What would it mean to bring in an individual donor or a family that may be not an organized philanthropy into this? Because we could use your voice and I think we could. That actually may be very powerful to hear from some people who are not in the kinds of organizations that Tanya and I are, but who have strong held beliefs. And I think as part of making the case for our sector, making the case through ordinary everyday people who are giving through their united way, their boys and girls club, their Catholic charities. That is the message. Right. And actually it might be interesting for us to hear directly from some individuals. So one might be let us know. And happy to make my contact information available to anybody through CEP or otherwise. You know, a second is as donors, there are many organizations that do make the case for the First Amendment, that do make the case for free expression, that do make the case for, you know, our Republican values, our democracy, however you want to describe it, more than happy to help suggest pointers to that. You know, one that's sort of of interest to me as the 250th comes up for our country is more perfect. If you haven't seen what John Bridgeland, a number of others are doing. Very, very cross ideological. You know, it's co led by people from different administrations. They have organized themselves around five democracy goals. And these democracy goals are the basic, you know, tenets of what it means to come together as a country. And they're doing a series of things leading up to our 250th as a country, which will be next July 4th. As you know, there are efforts to do that through community foundations. Our friend who runs the Rhode island foundation is leading some work in that area. So they're really interesting ways, I think in this particular year to do exactly what Tanya said in terms of making this case at this crucial time for our basic freedoms. And we can do that through philanthropy, but we can also just do that through our everyday work and the work that we as families and communities do in civic life. And I think this is the time to do that. And to Phil's point, like are we in a nother regime? And why I'm saying not yet is we can do this right? We have the ability to do this right now, so let's go do it is my argument.
- [24:01]
Tanya Allen
And let me add one last thing. We have united in advance because we actually believe this is a time for all of us to be able to speak our values. And so in addition to all of the things we talked about, like speak up, that that is one of the most important things that we need everyone to be doing right now. And you don't have to do it out on an island. You actually can do it in the company of others.
- [24:27]
Phil Buchanan
So we've spent most of our time so far talking about the preservation and protection of what feels like just really basic rights, the right to give. I always think of that John Gardner Quip, who was a nonprofit leader and cabinet official and Democratic presidential administrations. But he said, if you can't find a nonprofit, you honestly disrespect and something's wrong with our pluralism. Or I even think of George Bush Sr. You know, who talked about in his convention speech in 1988 about nonprofits as a brilliant diversity spread. Like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky. Right there was this understanding that the diversity is a strength. And I so appreciate that you're fighting for those basic rights. And also it's gotten harder to do some of the work that folks care about in particular areas where there's been a lot of pushback. So I wonder whether we could go there because, Tanya, the Ignite foundation has made the choice to focus on racial justice, on climate change. On the racial justice front, I understand you helped launch and now chair the board of a nonprofit that's raised a billion dollars in efforts to help launch, build up black wealth and close the wealth gap in Minneapolis St. Paul. I'm hearing stories of individual donors, foundations, who are stepping out of efforts in climate, efforts in racial justice, racial equity, because of the environment, because of the context. So can you tell us about your efforts in those areas and how are you moving forward despite these headwinds that feel more intense than maybe a couple of years ago?
- [26:20]
Tanya Allen
Well, I would say we're moving very carefully as we go forward. Obviously, we could read the tea leaves. And so we have been watching the legal landscape for many years, so none of this is a surprise to us. We've been very thoughtful about every element of our design. And as we have executed against that design, we've been intentional so that we didn't put a single of our partners in a position where they would be harmed, reputationally or legally. And part of the reason we didn't want to do that is because we don't want to put our work at risk. It is more important that we get our outcomes for the intent and the impact of groundbreak that we would design this with such savviness and such smarts that we would ensure that we would achieve our outcomes no matter what. And that's what we've done. Like, I'm not going to go into the details of that because I am not going on a podcast, even your podcast, Phil and Grace, to go into the details of our programmatic strategy. But we have figured it out. Like, if there's a will, there's a way. It's about being intentional. You can do the work that you need to do, you can design the work that you need to design and get to the outcomes you need to get to without using race as the driver and get to the people that you need to get to. And we have accomplished that and we have been able to keep cross sector market based players at the table to be able to do that and to still be able to use significant capital and to move wealth into the hands of people who have not been able to use that wealth and to be able to address the wealth gap that exists in our community. And so we're very proud of that. But part of this is about, like still being intentional about the outcomes that you have. Just like with the climate work, yes, there was a feast at the national level, but we also know that real work in climate change has to happen at the local level. And that has never, ever been in question. You have to change practice in people's homes and people's cities and their counties in the regions and at the state level. And so we have to make sure that that work still happens every single day. You have to get people to understand why extreme weather matters, what systems it affects, and that if they change small practices and sometimes change big practices in the way that they live or the way that their system functions, that it can have a huge impact. And so we've doubled down on that. That's why we actually one of the reasons we increased our spending a couple of years ago was to make sure that communities understood that if they made these simple changes in their communities, that they could have pragmatic impact. I was just in southwest Minnesota, in a town in New Ulm, Minnesota, where interesting enough, the way that they got convinced about climate was not because anything we were doing in America, it was because they had to go over to Germany, where the majority of they are descendants from, and they saw the practices in Germany about how you stop flooding, that they were like, oh, we should do this because this is what our descendant, this is where we're from, this is what they do in Germany. And this is what we will do here in America. And now they're doing it. These are the practices that they're learning and they're executing their practicing. And this is also what they're actually spreading across the region. That will actually prevent flooding. That will not just stop what's happening in New Ulm, it's going to stop the flooding that goes all the way down all these towns, down the Mississippi. Like, this is the kind of innovations that we're going to have to do. And that doesn't matter. What happens in Washington is about what the good people in New Ulm are going to do. And so we have to stop thinking that everything flows from Washington. Washington is important. But, like, what we do on the ground in communities, what leaders do is what's the most important thing that happens in America. And we should never forget that.
- [30:42]
Grace Nicollette
You know, when I share with people that I work in philanthropy, they'll often say, oh, yeah, I think I know what a foundation is. You know, on npr, when I listen to this, like, podcast, it's sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation. And there's also this thing called the Geniuses, like the genius Awards. But then beyond that, they say it's a black box. Like, they don't really understand perhaps what a foundation does or kind of what their goals are. And, Tana, you just talked about some of those goals and different ways of approaching them. There has been a disconnect in history, I think, between what people generally understand about philanthropy and maybe that's contributing to some of the challenges of this moment. If you were to meet someone and say, like, I have no idea why I should be defending your work, or, you know, the importance of it. Tell us more about that.
- [31:31]
John Palfrey
I think it is about the everyday acts, leadership acts, generous acts that all of us do or all of us should do in our communities, and that it really comes down to whether you give to your church or whether you give to your alma mater, in the case of a school that you went to and you care about access to that school or the hospital that took care of your child when they were sick. Support a food bank for members of the community who don't have enough food to eat this week, a homeless shelter for people who are unhoused. Those are things that we do in America to support one another. That's long held. One interesting thing, Grace, that you raised, not exactly your question, but I'll flag it anyway. There are needs at this moment that have not been philanthropic needs in the past. Some of them relate to what you and Phil have talked about, which are the gaps from other funders, and we do need to seek to fund those. And, Phil, I couldn't agree with you more. The answer of we can't fill the gaps, so sit in our hands and do the same thing we did before. Like, it makes so little sense to me. I would love to talk to anybody who wants to talk about that. I've been in so many boardrooms for other foundations in the last few months, since we set it at six, which is, you know, changing our floor for the next couple of years, you know, and what is the. What's the argument there? And there's just no argument. I mean, we just have to do better, do more, you know, meet some of the needs. But then there are fields that have not needed support before, and the media is one of them, and public media in particular is one of them. And we are proud donors at MacArthur to Groundbreak, which Tanya is leading. We're also proud donors together to press forward in Minnesota, as an example, which is an effort now in 41 different places across America to support local news and media, especially against the backdrop of basically a business model that's broken and too many communities that do not have anybody covering the town hall or covering the school board or telling the story of who caught the ball in the football game or who won the Quiz bowl or whatever it might be. These are all American things that we need to do. We need to invest in. So there are more opportunities for philanthropy, put it that way. We can't meet all of these needs, but we need to be more generous. And so that's what I'd say, Grace, is let's get in the game. Let's figure out the needs in our community and in this awesome all American way. And by the way, the person who really made this case in my lifetime was George H.W. bush. Do you remember those thousand points of light? That's what he called on people. He said, we're going to reduce the federal government spending, but we're going to call upon everybody in every community to meet those needs. Let's go back to George H.W. bush argument. That's fine for me. I'll go with that for a minute. Let's do more, right? And if you're going to pull back the federal funding or state funding, whatever, we have to meet those same needs in community and be strong. And so, you know, we can talk about tax policy, you know, and spending, but in this moment, that's the answer is actually for us to have the freedom to do that. And let's go do it. Let's get at it.
- [34:14]
Phil Buchanan
I want to go back to this point about this thousand points of light phrase, which engendered a lot of pushback from the left at the time, because folks thought he was offloading what people on the left believed should be the responsibility of the government to nonprofits. And it makes me think about some of the critiques of philanthropy that sort of peaked, I think, in 2018, 2019, where, in my view, there was almost this utopia sort of, with folks like Anand Girdedas, Rob Reich at Stanford, this sense that, like, it's tax policy that should fix this. And you'll even hear people say, well, and we discussed this with Julie Butner, who runs a big food bank in Texas, and we said, you know, sometimes we hear people say, well, I'm not going to support the food bank because that's work the government should do. And her response was, get real. Like, our fellow citizens need help, and so we have to do everything we can. And I raise this because I do worry that there are some folks, even people in my sort of personal network, right, who sort of say, well, I can't do anything about this, and this is not the system I would design. It's a broken system. And so they're almost sitting it out a little bit, as opposed to saying, like, yes, maybe we believe the government should do X or Y, but they're not doing it. And so we need to help our fellow citizens. I guess the question in there is, how do we make that case more powerfully?
- [35:52]
John Palfrey
I'll try. From the perspective that I had when I used to be in education, which was when a question came to be decided about to go left or right or to do X or Y, I thought the answer was always simple, which is, what's in the best interest of the kids in our care? Just answer that. See if you can figure out, there's one child in front of you, there are 10 children in front of you, whatever it is, what's in their best interest, and then try to figure out that answer. And I sort of think this is the same. Phil, to your point, we're in a community and the market can do a bunch of stuff, but how do we solve for the issues right in front of us and that we believe in? And I am, as Tanya said earlier, absolutely a believer that we need to keep our north stars in front of us. And yes, climate is unpopular to work on in various ways, but the needs of the climate and all of us as humans on this planet remain how do we do our best to accomplish that? And I'm a big fan of impact investing, as Tanya is. Sometimes it's using our money to unlock the capital, as she's done remarkably with Groundbreak in the Twin Cities, to put money to work to support the needs of individuals there. So I just think when we simplify it a little bit and say, okay, what are we solving for? Look, we can have an argument for how much should be government, how much should be federal, county, state, regional, city, like that. We can have that argument, say, how much should the private sector do? How much should philanthropy do? But we need to meet the needs. We need to have the community in the place we want. And I think one of the failures, and I will take this failure on myself and others, is we haven't done as good a job to create the vision for. This is the kind of a positive, abundant, wonderful society that we want to live in. In my case, a multiracial democracy that has everybody thriving. That's what I want. I want every kid born today to have the same crack at good health, a good job, a good life. That's what I want, regardless of their race, gender, background, whatever. That's my vision for America. We haven't made that vision plain and the way to get there. I think we can disagree on various fronts, but let's get at it. As opposed to having this argument. I have nothing to do about it, so I'm sitting back. That's the one argument that I'm most against. In some ways. It's like, if you have resources, you can do something. Let's get at it, and let's improve things.
- [37:59]
Grace Nicollette
Final question to you both. I am a beleaguered, tired donor. I. I read the news, and it gives me a headache, and I am worried about the state of things. I have issues that I care about. I live in a community. What would you say to a donor like that that gives them hope?
- [38:18]
John Palfrey
I would say, you know, the water's fine, and we just. We have to keep working at this. This is. I think we were all built for this as donors. This is the moment when we are most in need. And I'm a big believer in, you know, when the need is greatest. That's when we need to show up. We are the helpers, and there are lots of us who would love to join arms with you and be working with you and what's the issue? And as Tanya said, maybe we disagree on 100 other things, but can we work together on this or that? And there are many of us who are really holding up our hands and saying, let's work together from different perspectives to solve the issues that we need to work on and that we care about in common.
- [38:51]
Tanya Allen
And I would say never give up hope. Give to something that gives you joy. And I think when you give to something that gives you joy, then it's going to bring joy to you. And if you can't find something that gives you joy, then give to someone else that's going to bring them joy and then just wait for that joy to come back to you at some point or another. It's just a matter of time. Joy always will return.
- [39:18]
Grace Nicollette
That's a great word to end on. Tanya and John, thank you so much for joining us today.
- [39:23]
John Palfrey
Thanks, Grace. Thanks Phil. Thanks Tanya.
- [39:24]
Tanya Allen
Thank you, Grace. Thank you Phil. And always good to be with John.
- [39:28]
Phil Buchanan
Great to be with you both. Thank you for a great conversation. There are a slew of resources about effective giving on the center for effective philanthropy's website, cep.org as well as givingdoneright.org where you'll find all our episodes and show notes.
- [39:57]
Grace Nicollette
You can also send us a note@gdrpodcastcep.org.
- [40:01]
Phil Buchanan
We want to thank our sponsors who've made this season possible, including the Stubbsky foundation, and a note that any opinions expressed by our guests on the show do not necessarily reflect the views of CEP or our sponsors. If you like the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or invite a friend to listen, or both.
- [40:20]
Grace Nicollette
Giving Done Right is a production of the center for Effective Philanthropy. It's hosted by me, Grace Nicollet and Phil Buchanan. It's produced by Rococo Punch. Our original podcast artwork is by Jay Cuska. Special thanks to our colleagues Sarah Martin, Molly Heideman, Christina Tran, Chloe Heskett, Naomi Rafal, and Serena Goosby for their marketing, research, writing and logistical support.
- [40:43]
Tanya Allen
Sam.