Appeasement is in vogue. That doesn’t make it a good idea.
We’re barely a month past the 2024 election, and the hot takes are flying. But a clear theme is already emerging.
Former Hewlett program officer Daniel Stid captured it recently for the Chronicle of Philanthropy. In his op-ed, he calls on philanthropy to stop “funding the resistance” to Trumpism and instead “support pluralism in civil society.” The key to a healthy democracy, he argues, is to turn away from “the high-octane, all-or-nothing advocacy and activism” that have plagued the country since 2016 and are “further stoking the fires” of polarization.
Arguments like these misjudge the purpose of vital, community-led work and the movements that arise from it. They mistake centrism for pluralism, and they advocate neutrality at a time when speaking truth to power is necessary, not optional, for democracy.
It also won’t work as a strategy. An unapologetically brave, consistent, and vocal solidarity with social justice movements is the best thing funders can do now.
Here’s why.
Backlash by another name
Donor funding for equity and social justice movements has been wildly overstated. But some commentators insist that supporting these approaches at any level is counterproductive. These strategies are inherently polarizing, they argue, and that’s the reason our democratic norms are the mess they are today.
If this is the concern, let’s get specific. What exactly counts as polarizing? Is this what they fear will worsen the health of our democracy?
Is it helping immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers access legal services, prevent family separation, and chart a path to citizenship?
Is it making sure that queer people aren’t discriminated against in housing and in workplaces, and that trans people can live in joy without fear of state or personal violence?
Is vital healthcare like abortion access, doula support, and Black maternal health practices the issue?
Are community-led fights for clean air, clean water, and a cooler climate the culprit?
Perhaps reducing the racial and gender wealth gap or telling complete stories about our history is the problem?
For my money each of these examples, and many more like them, create a more truly pluralist world, not less. They all ensure that people too often kept from seats of power have a fair shot at correcting past imbalances and improving our collective norms, culture and policies. As a bonus, everyone tends to benefit from this approach too, in the same way that parents with strollers and workers with carts benefit from the curb-cuts that disabled activists spent years fighting for.
Yet even if these approaches are polarizing to some,