Our generosity makes us better
Just knowing that somewhere between $3 billion and $4 billion was spent in the recent midterm election on campaign advertising, most of which was negative, is enough to demoralize anyone. Spending the money that way seems at best a terrible waste, and at worst, downright destructive.
As a parent, I worry that these ads undermine our efforts to teach civility to our children and to encourage their interest in the electoral process.
As an educational fundraiser and student of philanthropy, I could not help thinking of the good that might have been achieved had the money spent on each poisonous attack ad been applied to student scholarships, food for the hungry, or any number of good causes and organizations that enhance our national life.
Now we are in that season when many Americans reach out to help those in need. I think this is what Abraham Lincoln had in mind when he spoke of the “better angels of our nature.”
Our donations are part of another great American tradition: We find common cause in the common good.
Despite the money spent on political advertising, more Americans make charitable contributions than vote in elections.
The United States struggles to get half of its registered voters to the polls, but 70 percent or more of all American adults make gifts annually. In surveys, the No. 1 reason cited is a desire “to give back.”
Gratitude leads to generosity. And generous we are.
In a nice symmetry, charitable giving in the United States exceeded $200 billion for the first time in the year 2000. Remarkably, within just seven years, charitable giving grew by another $100 billion, totaling $314 billion in 2007. More remarkable still is that despite the economic recession, giving in America has stayed above $300 billion for each of the last two years (2008 and 2009). There is good reason to believe it will hold at that level in 2010.
Most claims of American exceptionalism — the belief that America has been providentially chosen for a special destiny — are unconvincing and, all too often, unattractive.
However, the democratization of philanthropy that developed on these shores is as persuasive an argument as any I know.
What this means is that 70 percent or more of all Americans — from all walks of life and socioeconomic levels — make charitable gifts.
Philanthropy in America is not the exclusive domain of the wealthy.
The overwhelming majority of us routinely give to causes and organizations that we believe are important and deserving. Many Americans also volunteer their time to organizations.
I applaud the efforts of Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates to encourage their fellow billionaires to take the Giving Pledge, publicly committing themselves to give away at least half of their wealth either during their lifetimes or at death.
But I also have a concern about it. Because this effort is addressed to America’s billionaires, and is receiving a great deal of media attention, it might encourage the 30 percent of us who are non-donors to believe that philanthropy is an activity of the superwealthy. It is and it ought to be, but it is not theirs alone.
Philanthropy is our best guarantee of a pluralistic society — one that does not depend on big government to address all of its needs.
The American tradition of philanthropy — democratized giving — is also a sure way to avoid institutionalizing an aristocracy upon which the rest of society depends.
It has been said that the character of a society is determined by how it uses its surplus wealth. That we invest so much of our surplus wealth in the common good says something very positive about our national character.
Because this makes us better people and a better nation, this is a tradition worth preserving, especially in this holiday season.
Richard W. Trollinger is vice president of college relations at Centre College in Danville, Ky. He is a recognized scholar in philanthropy and higher education.
