Page 16 RAIN January 1982 HELPING OURSELVES Reality vs Rhetoric Some months ago (RAIN V11-.9) we told you about Bruce Stokes' important new book. Helping Ourselves: Local Solutions to Global Problems. The book, as we noted then, is “a superb synthesis of self-help concepts and strategies," and it is one we can turn to often here at RAIN as a source of good insights and inspiration. Recently, I had an opportunity to visit with Stokes in his office at the Worldwatch Institute (Washington, D.C.) where we had the following discussion. -]F RAIN: In his article "Involuntary Self-Reliance" (RAIN VII: 9,5) Steve Rudman cites examples of a recognition among some political conservatives that there is a need for government to assist community "mediating structures"—churches, voluntary groups, and neighborhood associations. Do you see any evidence that this position is gaining strength within the Reagan administration? Stokes: I see just the opposite, unfortunately. The Reagan administration is rhetorically committed to the voluntary sector, but practically speaking, their initiatives again and again undermine it. They have this "pie in the sky" view of the voluntary sector—that somehow, if we just leave people alone, they will self-initiate and do all of these creative things. That is so unrealistic! It's just not dealing with the realities that people have to face out there on a day-to-day level in terms of financial constraints, in terms of organizational, technical and stuctural constraints, and in terms of motivation. The reality is that people do often need a bit of incentive and push, and providing that is a role that government can logically and consistently play. The Reagan administration is pulling back from that, so you see things like Reagan tax policies which the Urban Institute has shown will reduce giving to the voluntary sector, because as you reduce the upper income bracket of taxation, you reduce the advantages of giving away a dollar to a voluntary organization. The budget cuts are going to reduce the amount of federal money that goes to the voluntary sector . . . and you see cutbacks on the very programs that were designed to help the voluntary sector help itself: elimination of H.U.D.'s Office of Self- Help Development, the cutback on the Co-op Bank and the attempt to eliminate the Solar and Conservation Bank. RAIN: It's the "philosophically neat" position you talk about in Helping Ourselves: sink or swim, do it on your own. No seed money. Stokes: Right. And you realize what's going to happen. It means that the United Funds of the world are going to live. They're organized. It's the housing co-ops, the newly-founded energy co-ops and the community garden groups that are going to suffer, and many of them will go under. You know, the United Fund has had a great deal of pressure on it to open itself up to non-establishment activities, but if, in fact, private and public giving to voluntary organizations declines, I think you're going to see people like the United Fund say "we've got to pull our horns in; we have to protect our old establishment activities." That makes things even worse, because it's a double whammy for the progressive self-help groups in the community. RAIN: They can talk about establishing an alternative United Fund, but it's not easy. Stokes:: Sure. The blacks, for instance, have done that, and in some cases have been able to get into major corporations, but there you have a very definable goal and a definable group. Among progressive and alternative groups that we're talking about, the community is not as closely defined. RAIN: One suggestion for community group funding which has come from the conservative side is the Neighborhood Improvement Voucher Plan proposed by Reagan advisor John McClaughry (see RAIN VII: 9,8). This would involve giving each resident of a neighborhood a government voucher which would then be partially matched by the resident's own contribution and deposited in the account of any of a number of self-help projects which the resident considered legitimate and deserving of support. There would be a varying ratio of government to individual money depending on People do often need a bit of incentive and push. Providing that is a role that government can logically and consistently play. how poor the particular neighborhood was. Do you see any potential problems with such a program? Stokes: I like the idea, but I think it might be a little too democratic for its own good. You might create a situation where, with every citizen having, in essence, a vote, some of the more progressive ideas might never get funded, because you would first have to convince a large number of people that they were good ideas for the community. Unfortunately, in many cases, you need several years
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz