By Jon Van Til

Whose side are you on?

Justice Antonin Scalia's recent observation that the U.S. Supreme Court's majority had “taken sides in the culture war” (by supporting privacy rights in the performance of gay sex in the Lawrence v. Texas decision) might remind nonprofit leaders to ask what side they're on in the bitter cultural, political, and economic struggles of this age.

Of course, the Civil War made it clear that secession will not be tolerated in the United States. Had it not, there might be calls from the “blue states” of the northeast, midwest, and west coast, those that provided Al Gore his popular majority over George W. Bush in the 2000 election, to be removed from the domination of the “red states” that provided Bush his triumph in that bitterly disputed election.

And, those calls might be joined by some red-staters, eager to solidify their claims that America is truly the land of family values, empire, and the right to get as rich as you can.

Politics, of course, stands at the center of what Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz calls “the great divide.” Just as the red-staters couldn't countenance Bill Clinton as president, neither can the blue-staters stomach the idea of the present incumbent.

Kurtz describes the divide: “The war in Iraq” was “either a brilliant triumph over a brutal dictator or an unnecessary conflict sold on a big lie” Do Bush's policies favor the rich? Kurtz points to a CBS/New York Times poll: “Only 25 percent of GOPers agree, compared to 56 percent of independents and 82 percent of Democrats. That, friends, is a pretty polarized country.”

It is on and around the three issues of personal values, perception of empire, and economic regulation that divides Americans from each other in matters cultural, political, and economic are found.

Culture wars? Rick Santorum, the junior senator from the state of Pennsylvania, is a cultural spokesperson who hopes to paint the state red in 2004. A devout Catholic, Santorum raised a bit of a rumpus when he recently proclaimed his belief that sexual activity should be limited to what sexual behaviorist Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey once quaintly called heterosexual “outlets.” Santorum's senatorial colleague, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), added his voice to those insistent that not only sex, but also marriage, be confined to those engaged in heterosexual relationship. Frist declared that he would “absolutely” support a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage in the United States.

A second front in the great divide deals with the rapidly expanding American empire. The red staters thrilled with the quick and easy win our troops provided in Iraq. Maybe there weren't enough native smiles flashed, or rapidly sewn American flags waved, for the conquering “coalition” troops to fulfill their expectations. But, the fall of Saddam's statue made up for that. With Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as their cheerleader and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz their intellectual leader, the red staters exult in preventive attacks on the evil empires of the world. And, politically, as David Bennett of the Maxwell School at the Syracuse University has noted, “For this White House, the threat of terrorism is a gift that keeps on giving.”

Investor/philanthropist George Soros notes that the Bush Doctrine is based on pillars of military supremacy and preemptive action. Soros observes: “This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

Blue staters, on the other hand, “told you so” that the nation building process would be long and painful in Iraq as it is in Afghanistan. They tend to agree with theology professors Robert Jewett, a guest professor of New Testament at the University of Heidelberg and John Shelton Lawrence, professor emeritus of philosophy at Morningside College in Sioux City, Iowa, that we've entered the age of “Captain America and the Crusade Against Evil.” As futurist Michael Marien summarized the Jewett-Lawrence book of that title: “The absolutizing of our moral impulses, the delusions of the ‘grand conspiracy,' the distortions of popular stereotypes … have warped our sense of mission and are driving us toward scenarios of mutual destruction. Our calling now is to separate ourselves from that legacy and to enter a long twilight struggle against what is dark within ourselves. ‘It is not our adversaries alone who must change; it is ourselves'.”

The third issue that divides the reds from the blues has to do with economics. Ireland-based sociologist Colin Coulter identified the forces that have divided the world since 1975: “Processes at work within the global economy … have served to strengthen enormously the power of capital over labor. Increasingly mobile multinational corporations have come to operate under conditions that are ever more conducive to profit. At the same time the reconstruction of the international division of labor has lengthened unemployment lines throughout the western world. Those workers who have managed to remain in employment enjoy little security or legal protection.”

For the reds, these are the eggs that need to be cracked to fry the omelets of prosperity. Taxes must be relentlessly reduced and the wealth of the super-rich increased to facilitate investment; government spending for entitlements must be restrained; the greed of public and trade unionists must be controlled. As for government-supported social service or income support programs, the knife of the budget cutter must be applied, whether the program be AmeriCorps, public housing, the earned income tax credit, what remains of welfare, or mass transit.

Coulter rebuts for the blues: “The ideologies of the new world economic order seek to legitimize the shameful developments of the past quarter of a century through the threadbare imperatives of ‘freedom' and ‘choice'.” Soros adds: “(T)here is a contradiction between the Bush administration's concepts of freedom and democracy and the principles of open society,” which involve people deciding “for themselves what they mean by freedom and democracy.” The administration's ideology “is a kind of crude social Darwinism in which the survival of the fittest depends on competition (among firms and states), not cooperation.”

For the reds, another Coulter, the author and lawyer Ann, has become a principal spokesperson. An Internet ad for her new book, Treason, entices prospective readers with this call: “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason.” According to Coulter, “Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don't.” The ad continues: “From Truman to Kennedy to Carter to Clinton, America has contained, appeased, and retreated, often sacrificing America's best interests and security. With the fate of the world in the balance, liberals should leave the defense of the nation to conservatives.”

Faced with these bitter wars of opinion, power and control in our homeland, what choices present themselves to nonprofit leaders? There are three possibilities: neutrality, selective intervention, and outright advocacy.

Neutrality argues that politics is separate from nonprofit action. The job of nonprofits, defenders of this position argue, is to serve the needs of persons requiring assistance, without regard as to why they are in need. Funding for such services comes from where it can be found. The unfortunate will always be with us; no money should be seen as hopelessly tainted; and, in any case, ‘taint never enough of it to meet all the needs of society.

Selective intervention means that, sometimes, lines have to be drawn. Questions must be asked if too many hungry kids whose parents can't find work seek food and shelter, or too many bodybags are flown back from a military adventure overseas. After all, among the core values of voluntarism are participation, self-actualization, and even social justice.

Outright advocacy argues that sometimes enough is too much. Bandages are fine for minor injuries, but if it's cancer, major surgery is needed.

If the latter choices are made, prepare for threats of funding cuts, anonymous phone calls in the night, and a weakening of resolve among some board members. Perhaps it will be a mixture of the most secure, and the most insecure, who will raise and pursue these matters: amongst them, the occasional far-sighted foundation executive or philanthropist, an outspoken member of a tenured faculty, a religious leader of vision and resolve, a nonprofit leader known for her determination to stand with those in need.

Jon VanTil is professor of Urban Studies at the Camden, N.J., campus of Rutgers University and is the author of the books “Critical Issues in American Philanthropy” and “Mapping The Third Sector,” and “Growing Civil Society: From Nonprofit Sector to Third Space.”