Nathan Cummings Foundation Strategic Planning Reflections on the January 2013 Event
Liberation from the Egypt in Our Minds Reflections on the Second Event in the NCF Strategic Planning Process Marriage equality, climate change and the Reagan Revolution; not many foundations would think to pull those topics together in a single morning. But that s what NCF did when we gathered in New York for the second of six scheduled events in the NCF strategic planning process. Ruth Cummings opened the event by reminding us of the story in Exodus when the Israelites were enslaved by Pharaoh in Egypt. She asked us to think about the ways in which, sometimes, Egypt is in our minds. She observed that imprisonment can be physical, and that it can also be emotional, psychological and intellectual. When we censure ourselves, or think from a small or constricted place within ourselves we can be said to be enslaved, she said. In this planning process we have given ourselves permission to break the bondage of old ways of seeing and doing, given ourselves the freedom to think. Indeed the central purpose of this gathering was to open our minds to possibilities we hadn t considered before, to see connections between seemingly disparate examples of success and failure, and to engage different ways of seeing the world. We also wanted to gain skill using the set of tools we learned at the first strategic planning event, to gain facility with a shared language, and a shared approach to analysis. In Adam s words, we re developing a new way of thinking, not just making a new set of decisions. After welcoming back our guests Rachel Pritzker, Ted Trimpa, Eilon Schwartz, Ted Nordhaus and Roger Pielke - Roger gave us a refresher on his framework for decision- making. We then heard presentations from Ted Trimpa (the marriage equality movement), Dr. Matt Nisbet (the effort to pass cap and trade climate legislation), and Steve Hayward (the conservative movement and the Reagan Revolution). We spent the rest of the day applying Roger s framework to the case studies, considering the common lessons that could be drawn from them, and, finally, what the implications of those lessons might be for NCF. Lessons from the Case- Studies The movement for marriage equality is remarkable for what it has accomplished and how rapidly it has changed American culture and politics. Over the last ten years public support for same- gender marriage grew from 25 to over 50 percent overall, and became obvious and non- controversial for most Americans under age 30. It went from being a consistently powerful wedge issue used against liberals, to being a political asset for them. And, after an initial string of electoral setbacks, equal marriage advocates are 2
winning full marriage rights in a growing number of states and the political embrace of influential leaders including President Obama. Philanthropic and political strategist Ted Trimpa warned us against viewing these changes as having been historically inevitable, and educated us about the strategic clarity, discipline and access to resources it took to bring about these results. He discussed how important it was to be uncompromising on ends, and completely flexible on means, and to align politics, people, policy, and philanthropy. That s the approach that has allowed proponents to change the discourse and win political battles, beginning, he said, when we gave up the idea that our opponents would have an epiphany, that they d consider our arguments, wake up, and understand that we re right. He talked about the critical role played by arts and culture, with everything from Will & Grace to the Laramie Project having planted catalytic seeds in the culture that created a dynamic that the advocates then needed to play rather than fight. Steve Hayward summarized Ted s call for patience and the need to take the long view, quoting Lord Randolph Churchill s summation of Disraeli s career: Failure, failure, failure, partial success, renewed failure, ultimate and complete triumph. The effort to pass climate legislation in the first years of the Obama Administration was presented by Professor Matt Nisbet as an example of failure grounded in advocates strict adherence to a model of social change that didn t account for a whole set of real- world considerations. Rather than expanding the number of options available to policy- makers (as in the Honest Broker model), which would have increased the possibility of political compromise, advocates and their funders settled on a single solution and spent hundreds of millions of dollars de- legitimizing alternatives. The advocates solution cap and trade was a policy artifact of the 1980s which would be applied to increase the cost of conventional energy; it was a tame solution to a wicked problem that proved to be a political non- starter in the depths of the Great Recession. Not only did advocates get the politics wrong, argued Matt, there was a fatal flaw in the linear model of social change the advocates relied on educate the public about climate change educate policy makers knowledge will lead both to embrace higher energy prices higher prices will lead to behavior change (less wasteful energy usage, more investment in alternative energy). Challenges to the basic assumptions that, for example, we already have all the clean energy technologies we need were ignored, re- interpreted or attacked by advocates. Finally Matt said that the advocates had confused ends and means, making cap and trade the goal rather than presenting options to get cleaner, cheaper energy to the public. 3
The story of the conservative movement was presented by scholar Steve Hayward in an effort to widen and deepen our views. Steve surprised us by de- bunking some of the things we d come to believe about the success of the Reagan Revolution and how it was brought about. Rejecting as myth the notion that conservatism is well organized and coordinated around a single well- defined ideology, Steve described a movement whose success lay in a deep appreciation for the power of ideas, taking the long view ( power follows ideas in the long- run, and ideas have consequences ) and in furious and continual internal debate. According to Steve, we argue about first principles ceaselessly, and refine our arguments through genuine debate. We re very clear about the ends we seek; we re open to possibility on means. Steve gave us a resonant image - the walls of the Heritage Foundation lined with oil paintings of the intellectual giants of the conservative tradition - and the reflection that there is no analog in American liberalism. It was interesting to recognize that while most conservatives could recite the conservative first principles of individual liberty and limited government, many liberals would struggle with the whole concept. Here s how President Obama articulated first principles in his Inaugural Address: Steve s insights about liberalism were instructive, as he argued that liberals are at their best historically when they seek to close the gap between America s ideals and its reality. Liberals do well when they think imaginatively about social issues, not just about programs, and should stop letting conservatives own the franchise on patriotism, tradition and God. He noted the political openings the left has created for the right by defining America in terms of its flaws and hypocrisies, abandoning the American story, family values and religion to conservatives. The reality, he said, is that what conservatives have had to offer in those areas has been pretty superficial; liberals simply haven t challenged conservatives or themselves - to play their A game. 4
Implications for NCF The conversation began the night before the Wednesday meeting, with an NCF- only discussion about the November inaugural event and the points of consensus that seemed to be emerging from the process. Namely, that board members share: Enthusiasm for the idea that the goal is a collective focus on what the world needs from NCF, rather than on what each individual board member wants A commitment to fairness/justice, as measured by how we treat the least among us A commitment to giving voice to the voiceless and empowering the powerless A preference for focus as opposed to diffusion A preference for long-term problem solving as opposed to short-term reaction An interest in the wicked as opposed to the tame An interest in the concept of resilience A commitment to innovation, risk and unorthodox thinking An interest in using all three strategies (information arbiter, honest broker, policy advocate) simultaneously, but consciously and appropriately Building, revising and challenging this list is part of the process for determining what is in NCF s DNA its bedrock values and identity - - and what is the Foundation s habitat the place it will live and the work it will do in the next ten years. Simon offered a story about a conversation he had with the CEO of Hillshire Brands (the successor corporation to SaraLee), who reported that Nathan Cummings personal commitments to risk and innovation live on at the company. For Simon and the other board members present, the story strongly suggests that those commitments are not just part of the mythology about the founder, but are part of the Foundation s DNA as well. Though it s far from settled, these items represent emerging clarity about NCF s aspirations, as well as entry points to some of the conversations that the board needs to have (e.g. what do we mean by fairness? Resilience? Risk- taking? ). As we continue the inquiry component of the strategic planning process we ll keep refining this list, working to distill it down to a pure essence that defines NCF to the satisfaction of the board. This will become the foundation for the next set of conversations about what the Foundation can hope to accomplish in the coming decade and what its strategic options are. We added the following possibilities that we ll test in upcoming conversations. Are these true of NCF? Should they be in the future? Committed to work grounded in a clear set of first principles Intentional about closing the gap between America s promise and its reality Connected to the American story 5
Focused on efforts in the spaces where conservative and liberal principles overlap, supportive of initiatives that disrupt conventional political definitions and divides, bringing forward shared values to create new possibilities and alliances (for example, liberals working on family values, jobs and the environment, promoting patriotic solutions) Expects to fail (one- third of the time?), understanding that if you re not failing, you re not risking enough Learns from failures Defines aspirations beyond the possible works to make the impossible, possible (e.g., marriage equality) Enthusiastic about people who know they are stuck, who seek more options and new approaches to problems What else should we add to the conversation? Next Steps: In April we ll have a chance to reflect on highlights of NCF s first 23 years, apply what we re learning to our history, further clarify NCF s DNA, and talk about implications for the Foundation s future. As we work toward November, the board will be exploring a range of scenarios representing plausible futures for NCF. This will mean getting more skillful at discerning what the options are, understanding where NCF s marginal value is, and where the Foundation can make a meaningful difference. The process will require patience we re not going to talk about possible program focus right away as we continue to explore. Liberation from the Egypt in our minds will require discipline, the consistent application of what we re learning, asking the right questions, learning more about what confines us, and the possibilities that lie beyond. 6