Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Yes!
Does someone have some numbers on this issue? Something that might show that the sort of NGOs we don’t like would be hurt and the non-profits we do like would be fine?
And how much is going to these NGOs from the US and from what sources?
I know anecdotally that conservatives give much more than leftists when it comes to their own money.
The great thing about the charitable deduction that I see is not how it effects money going to charities, but that it sends less money to governments. Now, were it part of an over-all tax reform that lowers all rates considerably, that might be fine, but just removing the deduction means more of my money going to Washington. Bad idea. You don’t give an addict more of what they are addicted to. You try to wean them off of it.
The nearly perfect term for this came up on another post a few days ago: weaponized compassion, as in “How do you define social justice warriors? They’re the ones who weaponize compassion.”
In this particular case, they’ve taken a gun, pointed it carefully at someone else’s toes and pulled the trigger to see if it was loaded, you know, so it wouldn’t accidently go off an hurt some innocent bystander.
Well at one time you had imperialistic colonialism, it has now morphed into cultural colonialism. You need food or medicine then you must attend our diversity seminars.
So, I’m guessing you’re not a fan of Jeb Bush’s scheme of allowing corporate donors to charter schools to take deductions in order to get around the Democrats’ blocking of public funding for school choice?
This is another case of unintended consequences. Most of the comments here on the reporting requirements. The worst unintended consequences are for the people of central Africa.
Perhaps it is time for a sequel to Tears of the Sun where once again Bruce Willis leads the oldest living SEAL team members into Africa to do good by killing beaucoup bad guys.
For you fake news fans, Google “recolonize Africa” and see African news sources citing fake quotes from Trump. “Recolonization” sounds stupid but I suspect a lot of Africans would welcome living under international panels and some semblance of law and order rather than what they have now. How else do the pre-reqs for national democratic institutions come about? Would American society be possible without centuries of Roman imperial rule over Europe followed by a universal Church providing deep-rooted common cultural and moral assumptions? What is the recipe for tribal societies to become functioning nations?
Indeed they are. As Mr. Watkins pointed out in WSJ, it’s easier to entirely boycott the region than it is to try to gauge whether what you source from there is compliant or not, so the people there, once making a living (no matter how meagre) by mining, now have nothing.
And add to it this – the NGO most responsible for this mess, EICC (http://www.eiccoalition.org/) is seemingly the sole arbiter of who the ethical players are there. In the end, only large international mining concerns will ever get certified, and they are likely to import their own laborers to the region to do so.
Tax payers money is worth less to donors if rates are lower. As to corporate donors, I don’t want managers deciding who to spend profits of the companies I’m invested in. A lot of it is illusion and just another way to buy influence and there is a lot of corruption in all of it. No babies get tossed. You want to make a charitable donation, just do it.
Conquer everyone around you. extract their wealth. start figuring out how to keep it. (See Rome)
These occasional articles by Skipsul about industry are some of the best things published on Ricochet. I keep this one bookmarked.
As to the Congo, I remember several years ago talking about “blood diamonds” with a relative who supported a global embargo on them. I pointed out that every time an industry got going in Congo, the thugs got a cut of it, but if we ban them from ever exporting anything we are dooming the country to never-ending poverty.
I live with “Conflict Material” regulations and they are a nightmare. I always have the suspicion the raw material suppliers don’t really know the locations of the mines from where they get the material and they don’t want to know.
Rare earth metals…..figure out how to turn them into jewelry and they will appear in every other store in every cruise ship port in the Caribbean.
Thing is, “Life is One Unending Series of Miseries in Central Africa” and “Leftist Do-Gooders Screw the Pooch on Their Own Cause Again” are both “Dog Bites Man” stories these days.
I may be one of the only members here who works for an NGO (Iraq). I don’t take issue with any of the OP’s points, though I would like to offer my own observations from working in the field and advice for discerning good and bad. By and large, the broader the mission of an NGO is, the less effective. A group with vague mandates like “help the children” ends up helping very few people meaningfully. Conversely, NGOs that limit scope to serving a particular minority or demographic are more effective. This is especially true of NGOs that draw the bulk of their staff and leadership from the same population that they are serving; acting as a kind of check against bald-faced malfeasance. In Iraq, the Assyrian Christian and Yazidi-lead organizations, even if leadership is in the diaspora, far surpass foreign entities or local government programs.
I can’t speak for other war zones, but at least here, the NGOs really do fill a gap in services that would otherwise not be provided by either the UN or the local incompetent authorities. There’s nothing inherently un-conservative about them, even if they uniformly attracts liberals. Assuming they are privately-funded, they are free associations that work often in places where civil authority is broken or non-existent. Owing to their ideological makeup, some suffer from excess good intentions, but I would wager disastrous effects like the Congo are the exception rather than the rule.
Continued…
The bad practices I’ve seen in other NGOs and independent charities stems from either 1) good intentions and blindness to their effects or 2) ignorance of the local political and cultural dynamics (more common with foreigner-heavy organizations)
Addressing the second point first, NGOs, like anything else, are susceptible to corruption. Local governments, either out of capriciousness or paranoia, love to co-opt charities. They will pressure and bully NGOs into hiring government-picked staff, not only so they can give their cronies jobs, but so that they can keep an eye on what these entities are doing. Stupid or ignorant NGOs will fall for this, while the smarter ones remind the government what the ‘NG’ actually stands for in the acronym.
The most frustrating practice we encounter unfortunately happens with some religious organizations. On multiple occasions, it has been revealed that groups ostensibly providing humanitarian assistance are in fact fronts for evangelical missionary work. I have nothing against missionary work, but when humanitarian assistance becomes contingent on attending religious services, listening to sermons, or even converting, then it’s a problem. It’s especially scandalous when these missionaries specifically target people who were raped and tortured because of their ‘pagan’ religious beliefs. It’s downright predatory to provide assistance to these destitute people with strings. But again, a case of good intentions.
This sounds like a great Ricochet post, a look into a world we don’t see much of–could you please write it up–& would you be ok with it to go Main Feed?
Yes, I think that might be worthwhile. I’ll write something up.
Thanks a bunch! Can I bother you for one more thing–when you do publish it, come back here & offer us a link? I’m sure quite a number of us are interested & you might also hedge against the tyranny of time on the feed pushing everything beyond the reaches of mortal men, on page 2…
If anyone cares to read, I’ve written a long [sort-of] response to this post on the efficacy of NGOs.
http://ricochet.com/395149/2-cheers-for-ngos/
And it’s a good one too!
The title alone is worth it.