Nonpartisan work is necessary, but not sufficient, if we want to save democracy
Hi everyone, quick reminder that if you’re free this week on Thursday March 19th, 1:45pm Pacific Time, I’ll be having a virtual discussion on my book, Reimaging Nonprofits and Philanthropy, with Ile Kimoyo. It is free and open to everyone. We’ll be diving into the book and a few key concepts from it that may be relevant to the sector’s work when everything is on fire. Register here.
In Reimaging Nonprofits and Philanthropy, I have a chapter called “The 9 Horsemen of Nonprofit and Philanthropic Ineffectiveness.” One of these apocalyptic equestrian riders is White Moderation, a concept I talk a lot about on this blog, during keynote presentations, and at social events, which may explain why I don’t get many invitations anymore:
“You see, Joseph, MLK spoke about white liberals’ obsession with ‘negative peace,’ which is just people being conflict-avoidant and glossing over deep systemic problems. Anyway, happy 7th birthday. I like your Batman cake, though I think Batman is the worst superhero, as being a billionaire is unethical and—where are you going, Joseph? Come back, we need to talk about how Batman should fix the system that allows his family to hoard so much money instead of acting out his self-indulgent and egotistical vigilante fantasy.”
White moderation manifests in many ways, as I list out here in “The White Moderation Genome Project.” Some of them are very subtle. Someone sent me the Democracy Notes 2025 Trends report, which details some of the trends we’re seeing among nonprofit and philanthropic leaders who are working in the democracy space. The report itself has some flaws, including the lack of disaggregation of interviewees by race, gender, and so on, and seems to like “pluralism,” which I have mentioned as one of the new ways White Moderation manifests, so read with a critical eye.
Along with pluralism as a form of white moderation, we need to examine the concept of “nonpartisanship.” This is about not being biased towards one political party, pushing for specific candidates, and so on. It’s about being neutral and working towards what works best for society in general.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? It seems so noble, so objective, so magnanimous to be “nonpartisan.” It’s like being the adult in the room while partisan children bicker and pull at one another’s hair with their tiny, sticky fingers, screaming and throwing stuff at one another. This is why our sector—or at least the liberal wing of our sector—loves this concept so much. In the above Democracy Trends report, for example, a funder says
“When I think about a mainstream democracy space, I think mostly about people who do what they would think of as ‘small-d democracy,’ work that is, in theory, in any normal time, nonpartisan, because it’s about strengthening the bones of the system of democracy, whether that’s election integrity, government efficiency, IRS reform, rule of law, or civil rights protection.”
Now, look, I like nonpartisan work. I think it’s needed, and I’m grateful when funders fund advocacy, civic infrastructure, and other nonpolitical projects and programs, such as MacArthur Foundation’s recent announcement of $100M commitment to protect democracy through grants that “support nonpartisan organizations and coalitions defending the essential elements of American democracy against threats to democratic institutions and norms.”
That’s wonderful. And more funders need to step up and fund similar efforts.
AND, if we want to save democracy, being nonpartisan and funding only nonpartisan work is not enough.
Years ago, I had this idea that I wanted to be a lawyer. Of course, I did not become a lawyer, disappointing all my relatives and ancestors. But, through my studies for the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), I did learn several useful concepts. One of them is the idea of Necessary versus Sufficient, and how just because something is necessary does not mean it is sufficient to achieve a goal.
Think of a chocolate cake. To make a regular chocolate cake, some form of chocolate is necessary. But just because you have chocolate as an ingredient, it doesn’t mean you can make a chocolate cake. You would also need sugar, some binding agent like eggs or a vegan substitute like applesauce; you also need some heating element like an oven. And so on. Chocolate by itself is necessary but not sufficient if you want a chocolate cake.
So this has become a problem in our sector: people do not understand that nonpartisan, pluralistic, bridge-building work is necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT to fight fascism and save democracy. Not when the side that does not believe in democracy are fully and unapologetically partisan and look down on and sneer at those who are nonpartisan.
This worshipping of nonpartisan work is often coupled with disdain of partisan work and has been incredibly destructive, leading to things like funders avoiding funding political work and instead spending tons of money and resources on useless or necessary-but-not-sufficient white moderate work such as “civil discourse.”
Also, there’s been a significant level of conflation of anything the right-wing does not like with that thing being “political” even when it’s not. For example, abortion rights and trans rights are not political. Protecting and advancing voting rights are not political. They are not partisan. But the right has been hammering the message that they are political (and this message is further reinforced by the nonpartisan and pluralism advocates who want to build bridges through dialog but often just end up platforming heinous views). And this, combined with the bias toward anything “nonpartisan,” leads to a suppression of funding vital work around these areas.
Yes, 501c3s should remain nonpartisan. But that does not mean the progressive wing of the sector itself needs to be nonpartisan. We have mechanisms for political work, including 501c4s and PACs. They have been poorly funded on the liberal side because of this delusional belief that politically neutral, pluralistic, bridge-building work is better and more effective than partisan work.
Progressive, partisan, political work needs to be vastly more funded. Because clearly the right-wing has been extremely partisan, and it’s been well-funded for decades. An example: the Supreme Court’s devolution into being a partisan right-wing body has been funded with billions of dollars over the years, including the largest political gift in history, 1.6Billion dollars. Where are the “progressive” donors/funders’ contribution of 1.6Billion to turn the Supreme Court progressive? It’s not there, because donors and funders and most of the sector believe we should be “nonpartisan.”
All of us need to understand that nonpartisan work is necessary but not sufficient. We cannot bake a chocolate cake of equity and justice when only the sugar of nonpartisanship and pluralism is ever bought and available.
When fascists are in power, trying to “build bridges” or “meet in the middle” with them only goads them on, fueling them further. They see compassion and compromise as weaknesses and laugh at those who align with these concepts despite continual evidence that it doesn’t work and often worsens the problem. It’s like a bully keeps harassing a kid, and instead of the kid fighting back, their parents try to meet in the middle with the bully under the philosophy that “all perspectives matter in a pluralistic society, and fighting back is too partisan and is beneath us.” No, the bully just laughs at this naïve kid and their parents and gets fuel to be even crueler.
All this to say, it’s time for the progressive-leaning wing of our sector to be MORE partisan, not less. It’s great that funders like MacArthur are putting more money into nonpartisan work like civic infrastructure. But this needs to be combined with several billion dollars of investments in absolutely, assertively, unapologetically partisan/political progressive organizations and movements.
--
Before we go, I have a quick favor to ask:
As I read through the above report on trends in the democracy space, one of the things that jumped out to me was the tension between nonprofits that are calling out fascism and doing brave work to protect vulnerable populations, versus nonprofits that claim to be serving democracy by promoting white moderate stuff like “bridge-building” and “pluralism.” I’m disappointed to see that some democracy nonprofits are doing the exact same thing. If you’re a disillusioned worker at a “pluralism” or “nonpartisan” nonprofit or a similar program, I’d love to hear about your experience. You can send me an email at vhl312@gmail.com or DM me on LinkedIn. I promise to keep your identity and anything you tell me completely confidential.
