CONSERVATIVES UPSET AT PROGRESSIVE NGOs FOR USING SIMILIAR TACTICS
According to an article from One World via Yahoo, there was a conference yesterday on theme, "Nongovernmental Organizations [NGOs]: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few." It was sponsored by the unelected American Enterprise Institute [AEI], a conservative think tank .

"NGOs have created their own rules and regulations and demanded that governments and corporations abide by those rules," was the AEI's shocking denunciation. "Politicians and corporate leaders are often forced to respond to the NGO media machine, and the resources of taxpayers and shareholders are used in support of ends they did not sanction."

It must be galling to the right that non-conservatives, like humanitarian NGOs, are using their same tactics. NGOs pressure entities to do what they want? NGOs act to advance their agenda? NGOs try to influence government policy? NGOs praise those that act in accordance with their goals and criticize those who don't? OH THE HORROR!

NGOs are not inherently good or bad. The AEI is as much an NGO as the Red Cross or Oxfam. NGOs are simply private organizations (neither corporate nor government) trying to advance a particular agenda. Some are good, some are not. The article pointed out, "Former Brazilian President Henrique Cardoso is expected to recommend the adoption of guidelines or other mechanisms to ensure that NGOs recognized by the UN are transparent and accountable." This is an entirely reasonable proposition.

But many conference attendees were not simply calling for more NGO transparency. "To them, the international NGOs are pursuing a leftist or 'liberal' agenda that favors 'global governance' and other notions that are also promoted by the United Nations and other multilateral agencies," noted the article.

"Big shareholders are getting embarrassed to be associated with some companies," said GWU Professor Jarol Manheim. To which I say AMEN.

If you're running sweatshops, you should be embarassed. If you're using de facto sharecroppers to cultivate West African cocoa, you should be embarassed. If you persecute those who want modest pay and humane working conditions, you should be embarassed. If you're oil drilling destroys the way of life for people in a river delta, you should be embarassed. All of those things may be legal in those countries. Fine. But if these facts embarass you in the court of public opinion, maybe legality is not the only thing to consider. If it takes NGO protests to make you realize this, so be it.

There is a reason these NGOs target companies like Nike and Nestle rather than companies like Microsoft and Tribune. Think about it.

I believe that formal government regulation should usually be the last option. I think that enlightened self-interest should be exploited to the fullest before pushing for formal government intervention. Why? Simply because once you get a label in the court of public opinion, it's harder to buy back a good image. It's easier for them to manipulate Congress or state legislatures. To that end, I am fully in favor of naming and shaming those corporations who act immorally. If they don't like bad PR, all they have to do is stop doing bad things.

The 80s and 90s, conservatives were very intelligent and creative in developing effective ways of implementing their agenda. It is not surprising they resent it when progressives wise up and adopt some of those methods. But fortunately, their whining will not stop NGOs from holding governments and corporations accountable. Somebody has to.