“If a Veteran Organization Supports It, It Must Be Good for Veterans”
Advocacy Myths That Need to Die
Day 3: “If a Veteran Organization Supports It, It Must Be Good for Veterans”
There is a shortcut people sometimes take when evaluating veterans legislation.
A major Veterans Service Organization supports it.
Therefore, it must be good for veterans.
Or several military and veteran organizations signed a letter supporting it.
Well, that settles it.
No need to read the legislation.
No need to examine the eligibility requirements.
No need to look at the funding mechanism.
No need to ask who benefits, who pays, or who might be left out.
The experts support it.
Except...
Organizations can be wrong.
That doesn't make them bad organizations.
It makes them organizations run by human beings.
And human beings, even highly experienced ones with good intentions, are not infallible.
Organizations Do Important Work
Before somebody gets halfway through this blog and decides I hate VSOs, let me save you the trouble.
I don't.
Veterans Service Organizations and military-connected nonprofits perform incredibly important work.
They help veterans navigate benefits.
They support survivors.
They assist military families.
They provide emergency assistance.
They connect people with resources.
They testify before Congress.
They educate congressional staff.
They analyze legislation.
They advocate for changes that individual veterans might never have the resources or access to pursue alone.
Some legislative victories affecting veterans, survivors, caregivers, and military families would probably never have happened without organized advocacy.
That deserves recognition.
But respecting an organization does not require surrendering your ability to question it.
An Endorsement Is Not Evidence
When an organization says:
“We support H.R. Whatever.”
That tells you something useful.
It tells you the organization supports the bill.
It does not tell you why.
It does not tell you which provisions it considers most important.
It does not tell you whether there were internal disagreements.
It does not tell you whether the organization has concerns about other sections.
It does not tell you whether the organization would prefer different language.
And it certainly does not prove the legislation is good policy for every veteran, survivor, caregiver, or military family.
An endorsement should be one piece of information you consider.
It should not replace your own analysis.
Organizations Have Different Constituencies
This part is frequently overlooked.
The “military community” is not one giant group of people with identical needs.
Active-duty service members have different concerns from veterans.
Retirees have different concerns from people who served four years and separated.
Combat-disabled veterans may have different priorities from nondisabled veterans.
Guard and Reserve families face issues active-duty families may never encounter.
Caregivers have their own concerns.
Survivors have theirs.
Older veterans may prioritize different issues from younger veterans.
Women veterans may encounter problems that organizations historically built around male veterans did not originally address.
And even within those groups, people disagree.
An organization may represent one constituency extremely well while having limited expertise or involvement with another.
That is not necessarily a criticism.
It is reality.
So when someone says:
“Veteran organizations support this.”
My next question is:
Which organizations, and who do they primarily represent?
Organizations Have Priorities
No organization can work on everything.
There are thousands of bills introduced during a Congress.
Organizations have limited staff, limited time, limited political capital, and limited resources.
They have to prioritize.
One organization may focus heavily on disability compensation.
Another may prioritize health care.
Another may concentrate on employment.
Another may focus on survivors.
Another may emphasize education.
Another may specialize in a particular era, branch, disability, demographic, or type of service.
Those priorities influence which legislation receives attention.
And sometimes organizations make strategic compromises.
They may decide that getting 60 percent of what they want is worth accepting something they dislike.
That may even be a reasonable decision.
But advocates outside that organization are allowed to reach a different conclusion.
Organizations Have Relationships
Advocacy runs on relationships.
That isn't inherently sinister.
Relationships are how things get done.
Organizations develop long-standing relationships with members of Congress, congressional staff, federal agencies, other nonprofits, donors, corporations, and coalition partners.
Those relationships can be extraordinarily valuable.
They allow organizations to get meetings.
They provide access to decision-makers.
They help advocates understand what is happening behind the scenes.
They allow problems to be resolved before they become public fights.
But relationships can also create pressure.
Sometimes criticizing legislation means criticizing a congressional ally.
Sometimes opposing a provision means disagreeing publicly with a coalition partner.
Sometimes pushing too hard can strain relationships an organization spent years building.
That does not mean organizations are corrupt.
It means institutional relationships are part of the environment in which advocacy decisions are made.
Pretending otherwise does not make us better advocates.
Understanding it does.
Organizations Have Donors
Yes.
We're going there.
Nonprofits need money.
Staff need salaries.
Offices cost money.
Travel costs money.
Research costs money.
Conferences cost money.
Websites, databases, communications systems, events, advertising, and advocacy infrastructure all cost money.
Organizations receive funding from individual donors, foundations, corporations, grants, memberships, sponsors, and sometimes other sources.
Most of that funding may come with absolutely no improper influence whatsoever.
But responsible advocates should still understand how organizations are funded.
That doesn't mean assuming every corporate donation purchases a policy position.
It means recognizing that financial structures are part of organizational structures.
Transparency matters.
And asking questions about funding is not an attack.
It is due diligence.
Organizations Have Leadership Structures
An organization may have thousands or even millions of members.
That does not necessarily mean every member voted on every legislative position.
Policy decisions may be made by a board.
A legislative committee.
Government affairs staff.
Executive leadership.
Delegates.
Members at a national convention.
Or some combination of those.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Large organizations couldn't function if every member personally reviewed every amendment to every piece of federal legislation.
But we should be precise with our language.
There can be a difference between:
“This organization supports the bill.”
and
“Every veteran represented by this organization supports the bill.”
Those are not remotely the same statement.
Coalitions Can Create an Illusion of Consensus
Sometimes you will see a letter signed by 20, 40, or 100 organizations.
That looks powerful.
And it can be.
Coalition advocacy can demonstrate broad support and give smaller organizations a stronger collective voice.
But again:
Read the letter.
What exactly did they endorse?
The entire bill?
One provision?
A general policy objective?
A particular amendment?
Sometimes organizations sign coalition letters because they strongly support one portion of a larger legislative effort.
That doesn't necessarily mean they independently analyzed and enthusiastically endorsed every sentence of every section.
A list of logos is impressive.
It is not a substitute for reading.
“Veterans Support This” Is Usually Too Broad
This is one of my least favorite advocacy statements.
“Veterans support this bill.”
Which veterans?
How many?
According to what survey?
Were they shown the entire legislation?
Were they told how it was funded?
Were they informed about the provisions that did not fit neatly onto the advocacy graphic?
Did anyone ask the veterans who could lose something?
Veterans are not a hive mind.
Neither are survivors.
Neither are caregivers.
Neither are military spouses.
You can put ten veterans in a room and get twelve opinions before lunch.
That is not a weakness.
That's democracy.
Organizations can represent constituencies.
They cannot magically transform millions of individual people into one political opinion.
You Can Support the Organization and Disagree With It
This seems to be increasingly difficult for people to accept.
You can belong to an organization and disagree with one of its legislative positions.
You can donate to an organization and criticize a decision.
You can volunteer for an organization and ask questions about its advocacy.
You can respect its leadership and still think they got something wrong.
You can believe an organization does 99 things exceptionally well and believe the 100th thing is a mistake.
That isn't betrayal.
That is independent thought.
Membership should not require intellectual obedience.
Ask Why
Instead of treating organizational endorsements as the end of your research, use them as the beginning.
If an organization you respect supports legislation, ask:
Why?
Read its legislative priority materials.
Read its testimony.
Read its press releases.
Read coalition letters.
Look at which provisions it highlights.
Then compare those claims with the actual legislation.
Maybe you'll reach exactly the same conclusion.
Great.
Now you understand why you support it.
Maybe you'll discover something you hadn't considered.
Even better.
Or maybe you'll disagree.
That's allowed too.
Expertise Deserves Respect, Not Blind Faith
Organizations often employ people who know far more about particular policy areas than most of us ever will.
Listen to them.
Learn from them.
Ask them questions.
Use their research.
Consider their experience.
But expertise should strengthen your analysis, not replace it.
Good advocates should be able to explain why they support legislation without saying:
“Because Organization X told me to.”
If you are asking Congress to change federal law, you should understand what you are asking Congress to do.
Kill the Myth
Veterans organizations are essential parts of the advocacy ecosystem.
Their endorsements matter.
Their expertise matters.
Their relationships matter.
Their research matters.
Their voices matter.
But they are not infallible.
Organizations have priorities.
They have particular constituencies.
They have donors.
They have leadership structures.
They have relationships.
They have institutional interests.
And occasionally, like every one of us, they get things wrong.
Myth: If a veteran organization supports it, it must be good for veterans.
Reality: An organization's endorsement is valuable information, not a substitute for your own analysis.
Respect the organization.
Listen to the experts.
Ask why they support it.
Then make your own decision.
Because supporting an organization should never require outsourcing your critical thinking to its logo.
And whatever you do...
Read the damn bill.
