In a world seemingly plagued by insecurity, brittleness, volatility, anger, negativity, and senselessness, being involved as a professional in the arena of gift-giving and philanthropy is something for which you should be grateful.  Each day you work in advancement, you are affirming the remarkable goodness of humanity through generosity.  Consider what we know from research:

1. Giving makes people feel better about themselves and givers report more happiness in their lives than non-givers
2. Giving binds communities together and makes them stronger
3. People who give live longer
4. Giving changes our bodies chemically so that we are better able to ward off disease and sickness
5. Giving is contagious. Even by-standers who watch givers in action, reap many of the physical and psychological benefits listed above.

So, as we begin 2018, I hope you keep close the foundational virtues of our work.  Yes, you have specific goals that need to be exceeded this year.  Facilities will need building, programs will need funding, endowments will need to grow, and budgets will need to be met.

But never lose sight of the bigger, more compelling reality:  You are involved in a honorable, particularly human work.  A work that brings us all a full step closer to the very best versions of ourselves.  A work that encourages us to deepen our faith and care for each other, despite all of the nay-saying and negativity.  A work that blesses both the giver and recipient.  And I, for one, am honored to be toiling alongside of each of you in that vineyard.

I invite you to begin your New Year by watching this short “ted talk,” which was actually a presentation by Viktor Frankl, the 20th Century Austrian psychologist and more importantly, Holocaust survivor.   He reminds us all that we have a responsibility to lift up, to inspire, and to encourage others.

Regardless of your circumstances, position, and station today, 2018 is a blank canvas waiting for you to create your picture.  I hope each of us will use colors from the palettes of kindness, patience, inspiration, encouragement, and belief as we paint.  Because when we encourage others to reach for their far edge of promise, we, in fact, become the best version of ourselves.

It is well known that, given the choice, younger people will opt to meet new people and participate in new experiences as opposed to spending time with a sibling or other family members.  Conversely, older folks tend to prefer spending time with those closest to them – family, long-held friends, etc. – as opposed to expanding their circle of friends or seeking new adventures.  A macro-level task of youth, it would appear, is to expand boundaries, friend networks, and experiences.  Meanwhile, the task of old age, it seems, is to embrace those family, friends, and patterns of behavior most comforting to us.

But why does this shift in mindset from expansion to contraction happen as we age?  Stanford Center on Longevity Director, Laura Carstensen, has a theory.  Over the last 20 years she has researched this psychological phenomenon extensively.  And, here is what she has found:  It is not necessarily age that causes us to become more focused on and desire to spend more time with the ones closest to us – the ones we love.  Instead, it is our perspective – our individual sense of how much time we have left in this world.  Regardless of age, it appears, when we are confronted with the limits of our own lifespan, we tend to home in on what is most important – our deep and abiding relationships with family and friends and the activities that bring us most meaning, joy, and comfort.

Tucked away in Professor Carstensen’s research on longevity is a gem of insight for development professionals.  Simply put, the more we can remind people about the value of a life well-lived, about what brings meaning to their lives, and about what matters most to them, the more open they will be to considering supporting causes bigger than themselves.  This is not to say, of course, that we should engage our donors in depressing and morbid discussions about the brevity of human life!

However, Professor Carstensen’s work should serve to remind us that our individual and unique perspectives on life and longevity impact our decision-making and behavior in profound ways.  Perhaps our role as development professionals should be far less about asking people to support our cause and far more about inviting people to consider what lasting impact they want for their lives.  Instead of asking questions to glean more about their financial capacity, it may be that encouraging conversations about what is deeply meaningful and gives purpose to their lives will more effectively trigger their generosity.

We often ask our donors questions about why they chose to support our institutions and organizations in the first place.  Or, what they think about our proposed new program or facility expansion.  And these are fine questions.  But, first and foremost, they are questions about us, our institutions, and, our plans.  If we would consistently turn the questions around and ask about them, as whole and complex individuals, we would pour the relational concrete for a strong gift-giving foundation.  Questions like:  “As you think back on your accomplishments, to what or to whom do you attribute your greatest successes?”  Or, “Tell me about the most meaningful gift you’ve ever made.”

Not only will such an approach provide us with rich, deeply-personal information about our donors, it also gets them thinking about what and who is truly important to them and how giving is good.  This approach also does something else that is powerful:  It clearly communicates the message that, “your perspective matters to me.  What is meaningful to you, is important to me.”  And that message is what enhances trust between human beings.

It’s not a bad thing to be reminded that each of us has precious little time on this earth and that we should focus more on meaning and what matters most – people, experiences, and how our lives can leave a lasting, positive impact.  In fact, encouraging others to reflect on this fact just may be critical to inspiring their generosity.

This week the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate passed the much-discussed tax cut and reform bill, which focuses, primarily, on reducing corporate tax rates and re-organizing the individual tax code. In the charitable giving sector, non-profit leaders have expressed concerns that the greatly-increased standard tax deduction levels included in the bill – from $12,700 for married couples in 2017 to $24,000 in 2018 – will reduce the percentage of individual tax-payers who itemize deductions.  In 2017, approximately 33% of tax-payers will forego the standard deduction and itemize, while estimates suggest that only 13% will behave similarly in 2018.

The reason this substantive decline in itemizing tax deductions concerns non-profit leaders is due to a belief that fewer itemizers will equate to fewer donors and dollars given away to 501 (c) 3 organizations.  Put into question form, the clear concern is simple:  If more individuals are not going to receive a tax “credit” for their gift, will they still be motivated to give?

It’s a fair and important question, to be sure.  And while most analyses suggest that charitable giving will be negatively impacted by the changes incorporated within the new tax bill, I don’t believe this is the most concerning outcome of the tax bill even if it comes to pass.  In fact, even if charitable giving should decrease by $10 billion or $20 billion as some analyses suggest, I still don’t believe this short-term result is the most concerning development related to this tax bill.

My deeper concern stems from a broader observation about policy and civil discourse today in our society.  The tax cut and reform bill only evinces my unease, it is not the cause of it.

We live in a political and social context today in which there is no serious discussion about the role of philanthropy, the importance of giving personally, in support of the common good.  Instead, we have treated all questions related to what makes a healthy, cohesive society as a binary choice:  either the answer is government intervention or the answer is free-market capitalism.  And while both of these institutions are critical to a high-functioning, free, and healthy society, they, alone, are not the full answer.

The U.S. has long been the world’s leader in generosity.  On average over the last 50 years, Americans have given away approximately 2% of disposable income annually.  No other country comes even close to that record of generous support.  Historically, Americans have acted so generously in support of the least among us and in support of other communal concerns because of a broadly accepted ethos – that giving is good.  That it is better to give than to receive.  That being generous is a healthy, valuable, and esteemed trait in humans.

But this “generosity ethos,” is being questioned now more than ever during my lifetime.  Politicians are questioning the appropriateness of gifts in support of educational institutions (and, now, through this tax bill, beginning to tax some college and university endowments).  Additionally, in my consulting experiences, I’ve witnessed a rise in governing board members and other influential supporters pushing and jawboning non-profit leaders to seek “efficiency,” and “profit-making,” as if they were leading for-profit enterprises.  In some settings, the non-profit mission itself is being called into question.

Quietly, I do not believe giving totals will be injured in 2018 because of this tax bill.  I believe the analyses of this tax bill suggesting a negative impact over the short-term in charitable giving are wrong.  Charitable giving, broadly-speaking, tracks very closely to market returns.  So, if the financial markets continue to do well, charitable giving will probably fair well in 2018, and perhaps, for the next few years.  Longer-term, though, I do have concerns.  When the important role of personal giving is de-emphasized in our tax policy, we are heading down a pathway that leads not only to fewer Americans making charitable gifts, but more importantly, fewer Americans believing that they should.

This broader and longer-term loss of focus of what, truly, has made America great will be the impact of this tax bill that is most concerning to me.  It’s not just our democratic government, and its not just our version of capitalism that has made the U.S. special.  It is also our historically-agreed-upon “generosity ethos.”  What has made and will continue to make America unique is an emphasis on helping each other, supporting those who have less than us, and, through our private giving, showing deep care for the common good.

This “generosity ethos,” though, isn’t a birthright.  It must be nurtured and consistently reinforced.  It must be taught throughout childhood.  It must be modeled in communities.  It must be celebrated by honoring generous individuals.  And, yes, it must be affirmed in our fiscal and tax policies.  When we consistently reinforce the “generosity ethos” in our families, our churches, our schools, our communities, and our political policies, we all benefit.  Not only do those who need the care, support, and encouragement get assistance, but the givers are transformed too.  It truly is better (and healthier) to be a giver than a taker.

Additionally, we end up being the envy of the world because we do not simply rely on either government or business to solve all our problems, to care for those who might fall through the cracks, or to enhance the communal experience for all.  We have this third sector, this non-profit sector.  This other beautiful, vibrant, robust, personal, and caring component of society which is supported in patchwork fashion by millions of generous people who are compelled to respond to needs larger than their own.  The non-profit structure which encourages the expression of the impulse to help each other is as much a part of the American success story as is any political or business-related accomplishments.

So while many are focused on the short-term impacts of the tax bill on charitable giving totals, I’m not.  What concerns me is not hearing any political, business, or other social leaders consistently and fervently raising the issue that we are in a longer-term trend of minimizing the role and importance of private giving to the health and well-being of our society.  Over time, when fewer and fewer of us are encouraged to give in support of each other, we all lose.  And not just financially.  We lose what has made our society the envy of the world.  We lose our capacity to relate to our common humanity.

This tax bill is not our primary problem, it’s just another expression of it.