“Something Is Better Than Nothing”

Advocacy Myths That Need to Die (Day 1): “Something Is Better Than Nothing”

There are phrases in advocacy that get repeated so often that eventually people stop asking whether they are actually true.

“Something is better than nothing” is one of them.

A bill gets introduced that provides a fraction of what advocates originally requested.

Something is better than nothing.

A benefit increase comes with an offset that takes money from another part of the same community.

Something is better than nothing.

A compromise leaves thousands of people behind.

Something is better than nothing.

A bad provision gets buried inside otherwise popular legislation.

Something is better than nothing.

No.

Sometimes something is worse than nothing.

And advocates need to be willing to say so.

Doing Something Is Not the Same as Solving Something

There is enormous pressure in advocacy to produce a win.

Organizations need accomplishments to report.

Politicians need legislation they can point to.

Advocates have spent years working on an issue and desperately want to see movement.

The people affected by the policy are tired of waiting.

I understand the temptation.

After years of hearing “no,” even a tiny “yes” can feel enormous.

But the purpose of advocacy should not be to get something passed.

The purpose should be to improve the policy affecting the people we claim to represent.

Those are not always the same thing.

A bill passing Congress is an accomplishment.

A bill passing Congress that creates another problem is not necessarily a victory.

Ask What the “Something” Actually Is

Before celebrating a compromise, advocates should ask a very basic question:

What are we actually getting?

Not what the press release says.

Not what the organization says.

Not what the bill title says.

Not what someone's social media graphic says.

What does the legislative language actually provide?

If advocates originally requested a significant benefit increase and Congress offers a tiny fraction of it, quantify it.

If the proposal was supposed to help 500,000 people but the eligibility language limits it to 50,000, say that.

If implementation will take five years, say that.

If the benefit expires, phases out, or contains restrictions, explain them.

And then ask whether the compromise actually addresses the problem that started the advocacy campaign in the first place.

Sometimes it does.

Sometimes it doesn't.

Then Ask Who Pays for It

This is where “something is better than nothing” can become particularly dangerous.

Congressional spending does not exist in a vacuum.

Legislation can contain offsets, fees, benefit reductions, eligibility changes, delayed implementation, or other mechanisms designed to reduce its projected cost.

That means Congress can give something to one group while quietly sending the bill to another group.

Congratulations. You get a benefit increase.

Also, congratulations to the people whose benefits, eligibility, or wallets are being used to pay for it.

That is not automatically good policy simply because the first group received something.

This is especially important in military and veterans policy.

Veterans should not automatically be asked to pay for veterans.

Survivors should not automatically be asked to pay for survivors.

Disabled veterans should not automatically be asked to finance another veterans program.

Military families should not automatically become the offset for another military-family benefit.

Sometimes offsets are reasonable.

Sometimes they are not.

The point is that advocates should examine them instead of pretending they don't exist because we like the provision being funded.

The People Paying the Price May Not Be in the Room

There is another uncomfortable reality.

The people benefiting from legislation often have advocates actively fighting for them.

The people paying for it may not.

They may not have a large organization.

They may not know the legislation exists.

They may not realize a provision buried dozens of pages into a bill could affect them years from now.

They may not have lobbyists walking congressional hallways.

They may not even be veterans yet.

They could be today's service members who will become tomorrow's veterans.

That makes it even more important for advocates to look beyond their own constituency.

“My people got theirs” is not a sufficient standard for good advocacy.

Bad Policy Creates Precedent

There is another problem with accepting anything simply because it is something.

Congress remembers what we accept.

If advocates repeatedly accept small increases, questionable funding mechanisms, narrow eligibility, or reductions elsewhere in exchange for legislative victories, those compromises can become the starting point for the next negotiation.

The exception becomes precedent.

The temporary compromise becomes normal.

And suddenly advocates aren't negotiating from where the original policy should have been.

They're negotiating from the compromise they celebrated three years ago.

That can make future reform harder, not easier.

A Small Victory Can Also Remove the Pressure for a Real One

Imagine advocates spend ten years arguing that a benefit is fundamentally inadequate.

Eventually Congress provides a small increase.

Everyone celebrates.

Organizations issue press releases.

Politicians announce that they “fixed” the problem.

Photos are taken.

Emails go out declaring victory.

Except the underlying problem isn't actually fixed.

Now try going back to Congress the following year and asking for the rest.

The response may be:

“Didn't we just fix this?”

That is one of the risks of accepting symbolic progress and marketing it as transformational reform.

Incremental progress can absolutely be worthwhile.

But if it is incremental, call it incremental.

Don't declare the war won because Congress moved the line six inches.

Compromise Is Not the Enemy

None of this means advocates should reject every compromise.

Legislation is built on compromise.

Government requires negotiation.

You rarely get everything you want.

Sometimes 70 percent today genuinely is better than waiting another decade for 100 percent.

Sometimes a small benefit immediately helps people who cannot afford to wait.

Sometimes incremental legislation creates the foundation for broader reform.

Those can be perfectly reasonable decisions.

But they should be decisions, not reflexes.

There should be an analysis:

What are we gaining?

Who benefits?

Who is excluded?

What does it cost?

Who pays?

What precedent does it establish?

What happens next?

Does accepting this compromise make future reform easier or harder?

Those questions matter.

Advocacy Is Not About Collecting Wins

This may be the most uncomfortable part.

Organizations need wins.

Politicians need wins.

Fundraisers need wins.

Social media needs wins.

People need something they can put in an annual report under:

ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

But communities need good policy.

Those interests usually overlap.

They do not always overlap.

And when they don't, advocates need to remember who advocacy is supposed to be for.

The goal isn't another bill signing photo.

The goal isn't another congressional quote for the newsletter.

The goal isn't another organization announcing that its advocacy “delivered historic legislation.”

The goal is making people's lives better.

Sometimes that requires accepting an imperfect compromise.

Sometimes it requires saying:

No. Go back and fix it.

“Nothing” Isn't Always Nothing

Rejecting bad legislation does not necessarily mean abandoning the issue.

It can mean demanding an amendment.

Changing the funding mechanism.

Expanding eligibility.

Removing a harmful provision.

Finding another legislative vehicle.

Building additional congressional support.

Waiting for a better political environment.

Or coming back next Congress with a better bill.

That isn't failure.

Sometimes stopping bad policy is advocacy too.

Kill the Myth

Advocates should never oppose legislation simply because it isn't perfect.

Perfect legislation probably doesn't exist.

But neither should we support legislation simply because it exists.

Our standard has to be higher than:

Well, at least Congress did something.

Because sometimes “something” helps one group by hurting another.

Sometimes “something” establishes terrible precedent.

Sometimes “something” leaves the people most in need behind.

Sometimes “something” allows politicians to declare a problem solved when it isn't.

And sometimes accepting “something” today makes getting what people actually deserve tomorrow much harder.

So let's kill this advocacy myth.

Myth: Something is always better than nothing.

Reality: Good policy is better than bad policy, and sometimes the responsible thing for an advocate to say is, “No. Fix it.”

And whatever you do...

Read the damn bill.