The election of Donald Trump stunned many people in the nonprofit world, but as we look at the results with fresh eyes, the outcome isn’t quite as shocking as it first appeared. Many of us simply weren’t looking beyond ourselves to see what was really happening with a large group of voters — and to consider our own role in creating the environment that led to his rise.
Now we are faced with a crucial question: Do we use this as an opportunity to find common ground and potential new allies, or do we retrench?
One of the central themes of Mr. Trump’s campaign was his promise to build a wall along our country’s border with Mexico. But while many were fixated on this wall during the campaign, we have been ignoring a more ominous wall that has been building, brick by brick, over the course of several years.
It’s the figurative wall between two Americas.
Many in the nonprofit and foundation world have been decrying the deep divisions that exist between the urban, liberal culture that exists largely on our coasts and the more rural, conservative culture that permeates much of our heartland.
The problems that many in the philanthropic world are looking to address — issues of economic and racial inequity, hunger, education, the environment, and health — affect large numbers of citizens on both sides of this growing divide. Often the solutions to these problems bring benefits to all — regardless of where they live or the color of their skin.
The incoming president has philanthropy pondering the big changes that lie ahead in the new administration and what they mean for fundraising, tax policy, spending, immigration, regulation, advocacy efforts, and more.
And yet philanthropy can do much more to bridge those divisions.
In fact, as I read the responses from nonprofit and foundation leaders on social media and elsewhere in the days after the election, I’m seeing anger and frustration thrown at Trump voters. I’m seeing genuine expressions of fear and panic. I’m seeing blame lobbed at third-party candidates and the FBI.
The tenor of their messages is dispiriting — and it’s also revealing.
In venting emotions about the election’s results, we risk insulting — and further alienating — a large population of people whom we need on our side as we work to achieve our missions. We are labeling them as others.
In turn, they are labeling us as part of the problem.
Anger at Elites
Many of those who voted for Donald Trump in places like Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin did so because they feel ignored and looked down upon. They feel as though nobody in Washington is respecting their values or needs. And they feel as though they are being lied to and taken advantage of by the so-called elites who run the show.
Many of these voters are living in communities that have seen better days. They have watched economic opportunities vanish and their education system fail. And they feel like nobody — not government, politicians, corporations, or nonprofits — has taken steps to find real solutions.
For those who work at foundations and nonprofits, this dynamic is all too familiar. After all, these are many of the very problems these institutions are working to address.
Many large national nonprofits and foundations have the power to do much more to engage this important population in finding solutions to these problems. Yet to achieve that requires reaching out instead of adding to the rhetoric that labels them as deplorables.
Yes, there was a current of racism, xenophobia, and misogyny in Mr. Trump’s campaign that was unacceptable. And we should continue to stand against it. Yet we cannot cut through that and change minds by simply denouncing it. Or by broad-brushing or stereotyping the people who supported his campaign as racist and sexist.
Instead, let’s use these results as a call to action.
Listen and Learn
The best way to combat these attitudes and push for the greater good is to find areas of common ground.
And this begins with how we listen and how we speak.
As nonprofit professionals, we should see the election’s result as an opportunity — and challenge — to take time to listen thoughtfully to those who have different perspectives. It’s an opportunity to learn about their motivations and their pain and look for shared goals.
Further, if we really want to address issues like economic opportunity, education, and global warming, our communications must engage more than a few selected audiences.
This doesn’t mean we should neglect our supporters and audiences. But we can expand those audiences by thinking about our work differently — and find ways to engage a full range of people in it.
We also have to rethink our tone to make sure we communicate with authenticity, not arrogance. All too often, in our official communications, in our fundraising, and in our advocacy, we are largely speaking directly to the elites.
So much of what comes out of the communications and fundraising departments at nonprofits and foundations is created for those who are like us — and it’s often littered with jargon and dense language that, to those outside of our bubbles, raise red flags and suspicion.
When we speak like insiders, we send a strong signal that we’re part of the same club of elites who don’t truly care about the needs of many of the people we are actually trying to help.
That leads to nonprofits and foundations being lumped in with the establishment groups that aren’t always our allies. Worse, it leads to mistrust among the very people we are working so hard to help.
And that’s a shame because quite often this work would not only benefit from greater support — it would improve the lives of many people who see it as working against their interests.
It’s a conundrum — and it’s one that nonprofits helped create.
But it’s not too late for us to take a new approach — and to take the message we heard on Election Day to heart.
Peter Panepento is a communications consultant to nonprofits and a former assistant managing editor of The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
