by Dr. Kevin Dean, President & CEO, Tennessee Nonprofit Network
A few years ago, a local nonprofit CEO, deeply committed to serving vulnerable populations, made a decision that left me perplexed. A meeting had been called to discuss a new government policy that could potentially have a detrimental impact on the very people the organization served. However, the meeting was to be led by a particularly controversial politician, known for their divisive rhetoric and policies that often ran counter to the nonprofit’s mission. On principle, the CEO refused to attend. She missed a crucial opportunity to bring an important perspective and lived experience to the table in those critical discussions, and the policy, predictably, passed. When I asked her why she declined to attend, she stated that she refused to be in the same room as the politician, unwilling to be complicit in what she considered a harmful policy. She couldn’t even imagine shaking his hand or not screaming at him when she walked into the room. Though I didn’t say it at the time, I completely disagreed. By not showing up, she was derelict in her duties as CEO. She had a responsibility to be at the table, to advocate for her community, even if – and perhaps especially when – others at the table held opposing views. The “purity test” she applied to herself as an ally of her community was potentially harmful to her cause. Though we don’t know what the outcome could have been at the meeting had she attended, her refusal to show up and strategically build a connection while thoughtfully advocating for her organization’s mission guaranteed a loss even before the meeting began.
In today’s highly polarized political climate, maintaining a nonpartisan stance can feel like walking a tightrope. For nonprofits, this challenge is particularly acute. Many of the issues we champion – from social justice and environmental protection to healthcare and education – have become deeply politicized, making it difficult to separate our missions from the political fray. Furthermore, it can be incredibly challenging to engage with those who hold opposing views on issues we are deeply passionate about. The natural instinct is to fight back, to defend our values with unwavering conviction. However, succumbing to this instinct can sometimes be counterproductive. Politicians wield enormous power in shaping policies that directly impact the communities we serve. To effectively advance our missions, we must be strategic in our engagement with them, even when – and perhaps especially when – we hold differing views. Meeting with someone who holds an opposing viewpoint doesn’t make us complicit in their beliefs; it makes us strategic in how we try to influence their perspective and advance our mission. Cultivating trust and building relationships, even across ideological divides, can be a powerful tool for achieving our goals.
There’s that quote about politics that rings particularly true for me: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” Sometimes, especially in public policy, nonprofit leaders must put strategy over ideology. Our fight or flight instincts often kick in, and we either refuse to engage or we flip a table. Neither is strategic. The best battles in public policy include showing up, building relationships, and building trust, even when we disagree with the people we are building those relationships with. Showing up to be an advocate for the communities we serve in a space that may dehumanize, misunderstand, or stigmatize those we work for isn’t selling out – it’s part of the work. We have an obligation to be in the rooms with opposing forces even more than in rooms with those who agree with us.
It’s crucial to remember that politicians don’t have all the answers. As nonprofits deeply embedded in our communities, we have a unique opportunity to be the voice for those who are often unheard, providing valuable insights and expertise that can inform policy decisions. Building relationships with our elected officials, regardless of their political affiliation, opens channels for communication and collaboration. We don’t have to agree with them on every issue, but we’ll accomplish far more by being at the table than by walking away from it. Meeting with someone who holds an opposing viewpoint doesn’t make us complicit in their beliefs; it makes us strategic in how we try to influence their perspective and advance our mission. Cultivating trust and building relationships, even across ideological divides, can be a powerful tool for achieving our goals. This can be difficult when you feel the communities you serve are being dehumanized, disregarded, or stigmatized, but we still have to show up and we still have to serve as nonpartisan advocates without the emotion attached. Having a thoughtful strategy can often trump
We also have to understand that activism, which many nonprofits are known for, is different from advocacy. While often used interchangeably, activism and advocacy have distinct characteristics: activism generally refers to public demonstrations or actions aimed at raising awareness and applying pressure, while advocacy involves more direct engagement with policymakers through lobbying, education, and relationship building to influence policy changes. These are two different strategies that yield different results in each circumstance. You can view activism as the protesters at the front door putting pressure on the powers that be, while the advocates may go through the back door to negotiate a win. Both together and separately, they are very powerful. Both have their merits, but the approach is very different.
History provides numerous examples of nonprofits that achieved significant policy changes through strategic engagement and collaboration even when the parties at the table disagreed:
- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): While known for its legal advocacy and occasional adversarial actions, the ACLU also engages in extensive non-litigious advocacy. They work with policymakers across the political spectrum to advance civil liberties protections, often finding common ground on issues such as criminal justice reform and free speech. For instance, the ACLU collaborated with conservative lawmakers on legislation to reform mandatory minimum sentencing laws, demonstrating that even organizations with opposing viewpoints can find common ground and achieve meaningful change.
- The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF): The EDF is known for its pragmatic approach to environmental advocacy, often working with businesses and policymakers to find market-based solutions to environmental problems. They have successfully partnered with corporations to reduce pollution, conserve resources, and promote sustainable practices. This collaborative approach has enabled the EDF to achieve significant environmental progress without resorting to constant confrontation.
- The AARP: The AARP, a powerful advocacy group for older Americans, effectively leverages its vast membership to influence policy on issues such as Social Security, Medicare, and retirement security. While they may occasionally oppose specific policies, their primary approach involves building relationships with policymakers, providing expert testimony, and mobilizing their members to advocate for their interests. This strategic engagement has enabled the AARP to secure numerous policy victories for older Americans.
Building relationships and engaging in constructive dialogue can often lead to more sustainable and meaningful change. As nonprofits, we are passionate about our communities and ultimately want what’s best for them, and we can maximize their impact and achieve their missions while fostering a more collaborative and productive relationship with policymakers by adopting a more nuanced and strategic approach to engagement. Yes, you may not feel great sitting at the table with someone you feel may be hurting the community you serve, but it’s your job to be at the table.