While reading the organizational profiles of the 12 "high-impact nonprofits" that Crutchfield and Grant chose to write about in their book Forces for Good, the activities of one nonprofit in particular - The Heritage Foundation - surprised me. As described by Crutchfield and Grant, The Heritage Foundation "formulates and promotes conservative policy based on principles of free enterprise, freedom, traditional values, limited government, and a strong defense" (p. 16). While a short sentence does not tell one very much about the activities of an organization, I thought it surprising that the authors would promote a think tank with an agenda that is so controversial. While many would argue that "free enterprise, freedom, traditional values, limited government, and a strong defense" are good, many would argue that some of these concepts are not good, or that their benefit (or lack thereof) to society is dependent upon the situation. While a think tank like The Heritage Foundation may very well be a "high-impact nonprofit," thereby fulfilling one of authors' criteria, I question whether it has "truly become [a force] for good" (p. 12), as Crutchfield and Grant claim that it is.
After briefly scanning the website of The Heritage Foundation, I found the following page, which describes some of the Foundation's objectives related to "Family and Religion." http://www.heritage.org/Initiatives/Family-and-Religion. One of the objectives is to "develop the best research and accompanying rhetoric that will strengthen and unify the current pro-family constituency and win over new target audiences to preserve the institution of traditional marriage and restore the family to its central role." My point in citing this statement isn't to start a debate about whether or not "traditional" marriage should be promoted over "non-traditional" marriage in this country. My point is simply to bring attention to the fact that some of the ideas promoted by this think tank may not be "good," at least in the opinions of some people.
While the The Heritage Foundation must have been a force for good in some ways (otherwise it wouldn't have been chosen as one of the nonprofits that is highlighted in Forces for Good), it seems doubtful whether or not it has been a force for good in all ways. I look forward to reading more about this organization throughout the book.
It does seem strange that the authors included this organization in the exclusive nonprofit list. In Forces for Good, the authors acknowledge the rapid rate of global change and the associated need for adaptation, arguing that many long-held beliefs or “myths” are erroneous. Yet, regardless of its impact (given its intimate government-political-business connections), the Heritage Foundation has an agenda to conserve a certain calcified, skewed version of American culture. Something goes awry when adjoining the Heritage Foundation with the notion of social change.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not understand at all why this organization was included in this list. It was one of the most peculiar and frankly strange things that I found in the "Forces for Good" book. However, I do think its inclusion highlights how (in my opinion) semi-prejudiced or ignorant values can be propagated. We always mention how great ideas or innovations can be spread in the "information" age, but tend to forget that potentially harmful ideas are as easily disseminated.
ReplyDeleteI'll just say that I am infinitely more skeptical of this book considering its inclusion of, for the most part, a conservative lobby.
But hey, maybe they'll change my mind.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not think this book was written to promote a certain organization. The authors chose organizations based on the level of their impact (not on whether they like the organization or not). The fact is, according to the authors, The Heritage Foundation is fighting for its cause and working to achieve results. The point that organizations need to adapt is well put, but I do not think the authors meant that by adapting, an organization should change its mission to fit someone elses belief. The authors are not basing impact on whether an organization's mission is good or bad... just on their success. If the authors, after three years of research, have found that this organization is in the top 12 because of its impact on society, why would we question why it was included in the book? I would think we would want to learn why the organization was successful.
ReplyDeleteIf we do not question, we become docile bystanders, and thus perpetuators. We cannot definitively state why the authors included the agency in their list, regardless of what is written. The reference to adaptation demonstrates a conflict and possibly hypocrisy, relating to the think tank’s agenda and the authors’ regard for change (ex. the Heritage Foundation’s family & religion agenda/purpose is suffused with highly controversial traditional constructions, yet the authors attempt to break certain “myths”).
ReplyDeleteAs critically thinking individuals vested in advancing the public good, we must deeply consider what is in the collective best interest. We must remain vigilant, as we are obligated [accountability]. Extolling the virtues of just any “successful” operation will not do. Perhaps the authors should have taken their research south of the border, to Mexico. There, they would find many a drug cartel. The authors could have described the drug operations’ thriving, successful strategies in the book, praising the far-reaching impact (if they were able to return home with their heads intact, of course). Too bad cartels are for-profit. Otherwise, one would have taken the first position on the list. Numero uno!
Is the book not entitled Forces for GOOD?
I debated over whether or not I wanted to become part of this –increasingly heated- blog post conversation, but I have one small thing to add. I think that the thing to do here is, sort of, find a happy medium in regards to the book. Clearly, I can see that I am not the only person in this course who supports “non-traditional” families or other values. I did just sign a petition in support of funding Planned Parenthood because I agree with the services they provide. For that reason, I am particularly interested in what is said about this organization. Maybe the reasons behind their effectiveness should be employed by the organizations I do support. Organizations who believe in providing young women with the right to birth control, cancer screenings, and education and knowledge that others would chose not to provide them with. So, I argue that we take the insight into this organization that the authors provide and use it to push back against the policy, opinions, and values that the organization supports.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, this debate reminds me of Sarah Palin. She drives me insane, but I also know that she can draw a crowd, a crowd that listens to her (in my opinion ridiculous arguments) and attempts to push them forward. Unfortunately, that means that those of us who are on the opposite side of the debate need to take a step back and figure out how she does it, and how we can improve on it to increase our own success (though I will admit that I still try to deliver “unfriendly” words to her through my TV almost every time she is on.)
Indeed, I agree with Casondra considering this point. There is much to be learned by observing those that market or garner support for ideas, even if those ideas are based on ignorance.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the big talking points for many political pundits when they seek to explain the passivity of Democrats versus the Republicans ability to garner support for something like "Death Panels." Can socially progressive organizations learn from conservative's marketing ability? Or are people naturally drawn to radical ideas during times of turbulence?
I think that history supports both answers. However, I am uneasy with the current rise of movements predicated upon ignorance and irrationality (I am sure my classmates can deduce the movements that I speak of). It is problematic that the general public does not hear about the great things that some nonprofits are doing in alleviating social ills. Rather, we are constantly bombarded with reports concerning the inherent evil of government or the "liberals" that want to kill the "spirit" of America.