USA Today - 05.11.2019

NEWS USA TODAY z TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2019 z 7A

Vice President/Local News and Audience Development: Amalie Nash

Vice President & Executive Editor/Investigations: Chris Davis

President, USA TODAY NETWORK Marketing Solutions: Kevin Gentzel

Gannett Company Interim

Chief Operating Officer

BARBARA WALL

USA TODAY Publisher

President, USA TODAY NETWORK

MARIBEL PEREZ WADSWORTH

Executive Editor/News: Jeff Taylor

Executive Editor/Audience: Patty Michalski

Editorial Page Editor: Bill Sternberg

USA TODAY

Editor in Chief

NICOLE CARROLL

“USA TODAY hopes to serve as a forum for better understanding and unity to help make the USA truly one nation.” – Allen H. Neuharth, Founder, Sept. 15, 1982

OPINION

MIKE THOMPSON/USA TODAY NETWORK

Over the past decade, America has

been the most generous country in the

world. That is the conclusion of a new

report of the Charities Aid Foundation,

which ranks 128 countries according to

how many citizens volunteer, help a

stranger in need and donate money to a

philanthropic cause. In the past year,

almost three-quarters of Americans

helped a stranger, more than half do-

nated money and 42% gave their time.

But American generosity, rather

than a reason for celebration, is viewed

these days with deep suspicion. Many

in the popular media are determined to

show that the American system of vol-

untary giving is fundamentally unfair

and helps to perpetuate what they call

“systemic inequality.”

Consider, for example, some recent

coverage of GoFundMe, the website

that allows people to crowdsource

funding for a cause, usually to help an

individual, a family or a community in

distress. An article in the November is-

sue of The Atlantic notes that the web-

site’s “call-and-response between the

have-nots and haves poignantly testi-

fies to the holes in our safety net — and

to the ways people have jerry-rigged

community to fill them.” Many will

think that this is a good thing: People

from different walks of life coming to-

gether to help others in need. In the au-

thor’s view, however, “sentimental sto-

ries of uplift can hide underlying struc-

tural problems.”

Earlier this year, The New Yorker ran

a similar article criticizing GoFundMe

for helping people to pay for their med-

ical bills. What’s wrong with that? The

author claims that paying for medical

aid on the basis of sympathetic stories

circulated through the media blocks re-

form of the health care system. As the

author writes, “The guy with resources

helps an ailing friend, or donates to a

stranger whose experiences resonate,

and believes that he’s done his part.

Meanwhile, the causes of problems go

untouched.” Better, he suggests, to let

the individual suffer so that his case

can be used to drum up support for gov-

ernment-controlled health care.

‘Dystopian social net’

In the Guardian, columnist Alissa

Quart goes after the GoFundMe cam-

paigns that have paid off students’

school lunch debt. She claims that

these meals should be provided for

free, paid for by the government via the

tax system. One reason they are not,

she suggests, is that others come for-

ward in their private capacity to pro-

vide aid, either directly or through ve-

hicles like GoFundMe. She writes: “Our

social fabric is sundered. ... Crowd-

funding sites ... are an example of what

has sprung up in its place, what I have

called America’s dystopian social net.

That is, we now require private solu-

tions to what are public problems.”

Of course, Americans have always

offered private solutions to public

problems. We’re very good at it. And

there are plenty of reasons to prefer pri-

vate solutions. The government is not

very good at solving every problem that

arises with individuals or communi-

ties. Why are bureaucratic approaches

superior to spontaneous campaigns or-

ganized by individuals through Go-

FundMe? Unfortunately, there is a

growing sense that any kind of private

effort to help is a sign that the govern-

ment has fallen down on the job, or

even that such efforts have allowed the

government to shirk its duties.

And, frankly, there are signs that the

government doesn’t appreciate the

help, either.

Banning DonorsChoose

Just take the recent crackdown on

DonorsChoose, a website that allows

teachers to post items they’d like to add

to their classroom and donors to decide

to fulfill those wishes. According to a

recent article in Education Week, a

number of districts, including Nash-

ville, have banned teachers from using

the site, saying that district adminis-

trators can’t closely monitor what the

teachers are requesting, how money is

flowing to different schools and wheth-

er the supplies are compliant with vari-

ous district regulations.

It is true that crowdfunding web-

sites have downsides. They do ask peo-

ple to engage in a sometimes humiliat-

ing tell-all, offering up the most inti-

mate details of their health and family

struggles in order to tug at the heart-

strings of strangers scrolling through.

Critics of the sites rightly note that it is

the breakdown of our civic life that has

left people asking strangers for help

rather than their neighbors and friends.

Even so, the answer to this is not to put

even more distance between the givers

and receivers of help by making gov-

ernment the middle man.

These new websites can help keep

people aware of the challenges that

people around them are facing, partic-

ularly if they are locally or community-

based. They can empower even small

donors to make a difference in their

communities by helping others in need.

It is misguided to think that simply

by paying our taxes and expecting the

government to solve every problem will

repair the fraying connections among

Americans — indeed, that approach

will fray those bonds of connection

even further.

James Piereson is a senior fellow at

the Manhattan Institute. Naomi

Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the

Independent Women’s Forum and a res-

ident fellow at the American Enterprise

Institute.

Why criticize sites

like GoFundMe?

Private help doesn’t

mean government failed

James Piereson

and Naomi Schaefer Riley

YOUR SAY

There are many compelling reasons
people choose the Beyond Burger and
the Impossible Burger, including the
fact that the burgers have no cholesterol
or trans fats, while providing important
fiber. But the environmental benefits of
these burgers are even more over-
whelming.
A United Nations report found that
raising and killing animals for food is

“one of the top two or three most sig-

nificant contributors to the most seri-

ous environmental problems.” By eat-

ing plant-based meat, we go a long

way to building a sustainable world for

future generations. I’ve never known

anyone who eats meat because they

want an animal to suffer. By making

meat from plants, we can avoid many

harms of industrial animal agriculture.

Matt Ball

Good Food Institute

Tucson, Ariz.

Plant burgers better for environment

LETTERS

[email protected]

WANT TO COMMENT?Have Your Say at

[email protected], @usatodayopinion on

Twitter and facbook.com/usatodayopinion. Com-

ments are edited for length and clarity. Content

submitted to USA TODAY may appear in print,

digital or other forms. For letters, include name,

address and phone number. Letters may be mailed

to 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA, 22108.

Propelled by insecurity, egotism and
more than a passing interest in getting
reelected, President Donald Trump has
been running a general election cam-
paign since his inauguration on
Jan. 20, 2017. This is unprecedented
but should not be a surprise. For three
years, he has shown a willingness to
use every lever of government to sup-
port his personal political aims, and his
campaign apparatus has already been
reaching voters day in and day out.
The Trump campaign has built an
online juggernaut. Since the 2018 mid-
term elections, the campaign, led by
former digital director Brad Parscale,
has spent over $26 million on Facebook
and Google advertising alone. That’s
more than the four top-polling Demo-
crats have spent combined.
As those Democrats are heavily ad-
vertising toward progressive base vot-
ers in early-nominating states like Iowa
and New Hampshire, Trump continues
to expand his online grassroots army of
supporters that he can activate for
fundraising and mobilization through
Election Day. Via digital advertising,
his campaign is spending money to
make money, as its small-dollar donor
list expands to historic levels, and its
digital juggernaut collects the cell-
phone numbers and email addresses of
every voter they need to win in 2020.
The Trump campaign is not just
speaking to his most fervent die-hards
online. Supported by a national party
committee that seemingly prints mon-
ey faster than they can spend it, the
Trump campaign has shown a willing-
ness to spend big to reach national au-
diences, including purchasing a mast-
head takeover of YouTube to troll Dem-
ocrats on the night of their first debate,
and to denounce the congressional im-
peachment inquiry as a “witch hunt.”

Trump online ad onslaught

On one occasion in the spring, his
campaign ran targeted Spanish-lan-
guage Facebook ads denouncing Vene-
zuelan socialism to potential voters in
Florida. The Trump campaign also
benefits from a vast network of online
conservative digital media properties
like The Daily Wire, Prager U and The
Western Journal that fill his voters’
newsfeeds with misinformation on
sites like Facebook, and the main-
stream news media often amplify these
narratives to the general public.
Little on the left has been done to
counter the president’s advertising on-
slaught online. This isn’t simply about
playing defense. We can’t leave any-
thing to chance. Even if the Trump
campaign were asleep at the switch,
progressives should be running a per-
sistent, well-funded campaign to the
voters who will decide this presidential
election — not episodically, but consis-
tently and across all available plat-
forms, newsfeeds and channels where
voters go for their news.
It is not the job of Democratic presi-
dential candidates to bear that burden
alone; they must spend precious dol-
lars in a still crowded and competitive
primary. The responsibility to define

the opposition and push narratives to

key constituencies rests primarily on

the shoulders of outside spending or-

ganizations and political action com-

mittees. Not a single progressive politi-

cal organization began to fill that void

until late summer — and to this day

these groups and their donors remain

underinvested in the digital space.

That is why we are launching Four is

Enough, a $75 million digital effort to

fill that gap. A program of the progres-

sive political action committee PACRO-

NYM, Four is Enough will counter the

Trump campaign’s online narratives

with voters in key states. We’ll reach

audiences on Facebook, YouTube and

other platforms, and engage them from

now until next November.

Don’t cede the field

While some on the left debate

whether digital ads now can move the

needle, we believe it’s dangerous to

cede the field. No reputable consumer

brand stops marketing to customers for

long stretches, and the Trump cam-

paign certainly understands the value

of always-on marketing.

As the Democratic nomination could

last through the spring and into next

summer, progressives must spend ev-

ery day reaching voters and testing

messages to increase widespread sup-

port and engagement that will benefit

the eventual nominee in what will be a

grueling battle against Trump next fall.

The Trump campaign will know these

battleground states and their voters

better than anyone else. It is already

working hard to try to influence those

voters’ perceptions of our potential

nominee — whoever that nominee is.

Under these dire circumstances, our

nominee will have to shift the entire

campaign strategy to run a different

election to different voters on a dime.

Democrats need to do whatever is

within our control today to set the

nominee up for success next year. This

means groups on the left must begin

spending at scale to communicate with

key voters in the states where the elec-

tion will be decided.

There will be no magic message, ad

or candidate. It will take time to learn

how to build the most effective case to

the right voters. Gone are the days of

last minute TV advertising, or even a

late digital burst, to compete or change

the narrative. A sustained campaign to

counter the GOP and push strong Dem-

ocratic messages must start now.

Our analysis suggests that less than

2 million voters in a few states will de-

termine the outcome of this election.

They must receive facts and progres-

sive narratives where they go to get

their information online, to counter the

misinformation they receive on a daily

basis from the Trump campaign and its

foreign allies. We have no more time to

waste. The general election has begun,

and only one side is on the field.

David Plouffe served as campaign

manager of Barack Obama’s 2008

presidential campaign and as senior

adviser to the president. Tara McGo-

wan, a Democratic digital strategist, is

founder and CEO of ACRONYM.

Trump has a 2020

online juggernaut

Dems must close this alarming gap

David Plouffe and Tara McGowan