The Giving Review: Philanthropy and the revival—or, ongoing renewal—of American patriotism

This article first appeared in the Giving Review

The recent commemorations marking the 25th anniversary of September 11 remind us all of the extraordinary courage displayed on that day and the extraordinary national solidarity that followed it. The first has proved more durable in American memory.

We honored the brave firefighters who rushed up the stairs of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon employees who helped their colleagues to safety, and the passengers and crew of United Flight 93 who bravely fought back against their hijackers. We also recalled the weeks that followed the attacks—when American flags were proudly displayed on front porches, people generously donated blood, and volunteerism skyrocketed. It was a time when Americans came together and rediscovered a strong sense of unity and national pride.

That was then, though; now seems so much different. Perhaps no moment of that nature can really last, but the passing of the post-9/11 spirit raises a question of particular interest for philanthropy: can the habits and institutions that sustain a common civic identity be cultivated before catastrophe makes them suddenly necessary?

The issue has been around for a while. Some 20 years ago, the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal convened a symposium about, at core, the same thing: “Who Are We Today? American Character and Identity in the Twenty-First Century.” The discussion eventually arrived at the question most relevant to donors: what can philanthropy do to “revive, to renew, to reinspirit patriotism or civic identity?”

Wilfred McClay’s answer was institutional. Philanthropy, he suggested, could foster new “think tanks, media, schools, colleges, and other avenues of intellectual and cultural renewal”—institutions capable of transmitting an understanding of ourselves from one generation to the next.

Incentives

In a recent Wall Street Journal column, Walter Russell Mead argues that renewed great-power competition is changing the cultural incentives surrounding patriotism. In the post-Cold War world, elite institutions rewarded cosmopolitanism. Corporations wanted employees comfortable operating in a borderless global economy, and universities increasingly understood themselves as global rather than distinctly American institutions.

Mead believes we’re approaching the end of this era. Companies and universities alike, he thinks, will likely soon see benefits in being clearly identified as American. Market and geopolitical forces might be doing the work that philanthropists thought required deliberative cultural efforts. If he is correct that external incentives favoring patriotism are making a comeback, what should philanthropy make of and how should it react to this shift?

Just tweaking incentives isn’t the same as genuinely revitalizing our civic spirit. A company might decide that that being patriotic is good for its brand image, so it starts waving the flag. A university might set up a new center to study the founding of America. But neither necessarily means that Americans are actually starting to feel a stronger sense of responsibility towards each other.

We should take another look at what the Bradley participants thought almost two decades ago. Private foundations and donors have the unique ability and freedom to create and maintain institutions before their purposes before they become trendily fashionable or the smart thing to do. For givers, this could mean supporting schools that focus on teaching civics, programs that teach American history, or organizations that bring citizens of different backgrounds together to work towards the common good.

Identity

The Bradley Project on America’s National Identity in 2008 describes America as a nation that has to, in effect, begin itself anew with every generation. This conception of national identity means its history, institutions, obligations, and habits must continually be taught and learned.

Which suggests a role for philanthropy. Donors themselves cannot manufacture national unity in and of itself. In fact, they should probably distrust anyone who promises that a sufficiently large-enough grant can do so. They can, however, seek to build and sustain those institutions in which citizenship is learned and practiced.

That might include institutions devoted to the founding and the Constitution, of course. But it should extend further—to voluntary associations, local civic organizations, serious historical education, service, public humanities, museums, libraries, religious institutions, and other places in which citizenship is an active experience.

Mead notes that patriotism may be “in”—fashionable?—again, for certain reasons. In the context of philanthropy, his thinking raises the question of whether philanthropy can and will use this moment to help build things capable of surviving the next change in fashion.

It’s been 25 years since September 11, which showed us that when things get tough, Americans can come together in a big way. Patriotic national solidarity gloriously appeared. The question for philanthropy is what, if anything, it can do to help deeply root this patriotism, for permanent presence in more-ordinary times.

Source: https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-giving-review-philanthropy-and-the-revival-or-ongoing-renewal-of-american-patriotism/