Donald Trump’s charitable donations have varied widely by year and have been a subject of intense public and legal scrutiny, with independent audits showing a significant gap between his public pledges and verified cash contributions.
Personal Income Tax Returns
Public disclosures and joint tax returns released by Congress outline his direct charitable contributions: [1]
The Presidential Salary: During his time in office, Trump honored his pledge to donate his $400,000 annual presidential salary to various federal departments (such as the National Park Service and veterans programs) from 2017 through 2019. [2, 3]
Annual Variations: His tax returns showed personal charitable donations of $1.86 million in 2017, $500,150 in 2018, and $504,700 in 2019. [2, 4]
Drop to Zero: In 2020, his final year in office, his reported charitable contributions dropped to $0. [2, 4]
Non-Cash vs. Cash Giving
While Trump’s tax records reported roughly $130 million in total charitable giving since 2005, investigative audits by The Washington Post and The New York Times revealed that the vast majority was not given in cash: [5, 6]
Conservation Easements: Approximately $119.3 million of that total consisted of “conservation easements”. These are legal agreements where Trump promised not to develop specific parcels of land he owned in exchange for large tax write-offs. In several instances, these write-offs were taken on land where commercial development plans had already been blocked by local zoning laws. [5, 6, 7, 8]
Corporate Perks: Millions of dollars listed as corporate giving from his hotels and golf courses included non-cash gifts-in-kind, such as offering free rounds of golf, hotel stays, and spa certificates for charity auctions. [9, 10]
Actual Personal Cash: Tax filings over multiple multi-year periods frequently showed relatively low personal cash giving. For example, during the five years leading up to his 2015 campaign launch, he reported $735,238 in total personal cash donations. [5, 6]
The Donald J. Trump Foundation
Trump’s private grantmaking entity, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, distributed about $10.9 million between 2001 and 2014, though Trump stopped personal contributions after 2008, relying instead on outside donors while taking public credit. [7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
The foundation was dissolved in 2018 following a New York State Attorney General lawsuit regarding the misuse of funds for personal and political purposes. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million in damages, and remaining assets were distributed to other charities. [7, 14, 15, 16]
Whether Donald Trump displays narcissism is a subject of frequent public debate and extensive analysis among political commentators, biographers, and mental health professionals. [1, 2, 3]
Public Observations and Behavioral Traits
Commentators, journalists, and critics frequently point to specific, highly visible aspects of Trump’s public behavior as evidence of narcissistic tendencies. These traits include: [1, 3]
Grandiosity: He frequently describes his accomplishments, wealth, intelligence, and administration in superlative terms (e.g., calling himself a “very stable genius” or claiming to have done more than any other president). [1, 2, 4]
Need for Admiration: He routinely emphasizes the size of his rally crowds and values public praise and loyalty. [1, 4, 5]
Sensitivity to Criticism: Observers note that he reacts intensely to perceived slights or negative press, often responding with counterattacks, deflections, or personal insults against critics. [1, 3]
Perspectives from Mental Health Professionals
The psychological community is divided over how to address his public behavior, largely due to professional ethics rules:
The Goldwater Rule: The American Psychiatric Association maintains the “Goldwater Rule,” an ethical guideline stating that it is unethical for psychiatrists to offer a professional opinion or clinical diagnosis of a public figure without a personal examination and proper authorization. [5, 6, 7]
Arguments for a Diagnosis: Despite this rule, some groups of mental health professionals have publicly broken ranks. For instance, in an open letter published in October 2024 organized by the Anti-Psychopath PAC, more than 200 mental health professionals asserted that Trump’s observable public behaviors align with the criteria for “malignant narcissism” and antisocial personality disorder. Other experts have echoed that his public persona checks many boxes outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). [4, 6, 8, 9, 10]
Arguments Against a Diagnosis: Conversely, other clinicians and psychologists argue that labeling a public figure from afar is clinically irresponsible. Some suggest that his behavior may instead reflect a calculated media strategy, deep-seated defense mechanisms, or alternative behavioral patterns like Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), rather than a personality disorder. They emphasize that political rhetoric and a performative public persona do not automatically equate to a psychiatric condition. [3, 5, 11, 12]
Because Donald Trump has never undergone a formal, publicized psychiatric evaluation, there is no official clinical diagnosis. He has historically dismissed these psychological critiques as politically motivated attacks by his opponents. [1, 3]
Whether Donald Trump can be classified as a megalomaniac is a subject of intense public, political, and psychological debate, with no formal medical consensus. Because megalomania is a lay term for an extreme obsession with power, wealth, and self-importance, assessments of his personality depend heavily on the perspective of the observer. [1, 2]
Arguments That He Exhibits Megalomania
Critics, political opponents, and some commentators frequently describe Trump as a megalomaniac. They point to specific behaviors and rhetoric to support this claim: [2, 3]
Grandiose Rhetoric and Ambitions: Critics point to his public statements portraying himself as historically unique—such as claiming he is the best president in U.S. history or suggesting extraordinary policy goals like acquiring Greenland or building a “golden dome” missile defense system. [4, 5, 6]
Demand for Affidavits of Loyalty: Observers frequently highlight his reported appetite for intense personal praise and his preference for surrounding himself with staunch loyalists, which critics argue creates an autocratic echo chamber. [3, 7, 8, 9]
Obsession with Personal Branding: Writers have noted his career-long insistence on placing his name prominently on buildings, products, and even government-related initiatives, viewing it as a clear sign of an inflated sense of self-importance. [2, 10, 11]
Counterarguments and Alternative Explanations
Supporters, defenders, and certain mental health experts offer different interpretations of his behavior:
A Strategic Persona for Populist Politics: Supporters often view his boastful and aggressive rhetoric not as a psychological flaw, but as a deliberate and effective political style. To his base, his supreme self-confidence is seen as a sign of strength, resilience, and the exact kind of leadership needed to challenge established political norms.
Distinction from Clinical Diagnosis: Professional mental health experts have cautioned against diagnosing public figures from afar. Notably, Dr. Allen Frances, a prominent psychiatrist who helped write the diagnostic manual for mental illnesses, has argued that while Trump exhibits highly visible and disagreeable traits like extreme self-promotion, these behaviors do not necessarily equate to a clinical mental disorder or madness. Instead, they can be understood as the behavior of a ruthless, lifelong self-promoter operating effectively within media and political landscapes. [1, 10]
Donald Trump‘s philosophical, political, and religious ideals are widely characterized by analysts, biographers, and political scientists as pragmatic, transactional, and deeply rooted in populism, rather than aligned with rigid or traditional frameworks. While critics often argue his core ideology is centered around personal brand and self-interest, his public career demonstrates a consistent set of core nationalist instincts and specific theological influences. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
1. Political Ideals: Right-Wing Populism and “America First”
Political scientists generally categorize Trump’s political ideology as right-wing populism mixed with illiberal nationalism. Rather than adhering to traditional American conservatism (which historically emphasized free trade, global alliances, and fiscal restraint), Trump’s political platform is defined by:
Nationalism and Protectionism: Guided by his “America First” directive, he favors isolationist foreign policy, skepticism of international bodies (like NATO), and aggressive trade tariffs to protect domestic manufacturing. [1, 6]
Anti-Establishment Populism: He positions himself as a champion of the working class against a corrupt globalist elite, utilizing resentment toward “political correctness,” open borders, and globalization. [1]
Strongman Governance: Observers note his political philosophy leans toward an autocratic style of leadership, valuing supreme executive authority, personal loyalty, and retribution against political adversaries. [7, 8]
2. Philosophical Ideals: Hyper-Individualism and Transactionalism
Commentators and biographers note that Trump does not subscribe to formal political or classical philosophies, but operates under a distinct personal ethos:
Hyper-Individualism: Philosophically, Trump embodies radical self-reliance and the idea that individuals—and nations—should look out for their own immediate interests first, viewing shared sacrifice or collective institutional rules with skepticism. [2]
Zero-Sum Transactionalism: He views human interactions, business, and geopolitics through a zero-sum lens (winners vs. losers). In this philosophy, deals are metrics of success, and strength is the ultimate virtue, while compromise or admitting error is viewed as weakness. [3]
Limitless Epistemic Self-Confidence: His personal philosophy positions his own intuition above institutional expertise, frequently asserting that he alone possesses the knowledge to solve complex national crises. [7]
3. Religious Ideals: Prosperity Theology and Religion as an Instrument
Trump was raised Presbyterian but identified as a non-denominational Christian later in life. According to polling data, a majority of Americans do not view him as personally religious; however, his spiritual worldview is heavily influenced by a specific theological movement: [4, 9, 10]
The Power of Positive Thinking & Prosperity Gospel: Trump’s family attended the church of Norman Vincent Peale, author of The Power of Positive Thinking. This theology emphasizes that material wealth, business success, and personal advancement are signs of divine favor. It demands little personal repentance or self-constraint, matching Trump’s public statements that he has rarely felt the need to ask God for forgiveness.
Instrumental Use of Religion: Scholars and critics observe that Trump largely views religion as a pragmatic tool for political alignment and cultural warfare. He heavily embraces Christian nationalist rhetoric, promotes religious symbols in public spaces, and actively delivers conservative judicial and social policies to maintain his bedrock support among evangelical Christians. [4, 5, 6, 11, 12]
By 1992 politicians learned that black/white, good/bad, right/wrong framing of political issues was most effective. No more late-night sessions in a “smoke filled room”. No more compromises. No more earmarks or logrolling. Political parties must be philosophically consistent. No personal relations among congresspeople. No great existential threat, country, philosophy or doctrine to oppose together. Modern marketing and psychology provided the insights and tools to truly manipulate the public. Emotions are more powerful than logic. Hate and fear are stronger than hope. Compromise is immoral. Framing the discussion and providing the right language is most effective.
Republicans learned much faster than Democrats who held onto their historical successes, clung to rationality, facts and experts, embraced progressive trends, worshipped ideals above results, were slow to leverage modern political technologies, and truly believed they would prevail simply because they were right.
In hindsight, the path forward was obvious. Find issues that are emotionally charged. Define them as good versus evil. Manage the conceptual frames to make your position appear reasonable and the opponents extreme or radical. Use actions, political activity and the media to focus attention on the issues that are most favorable to your party at any point in time. The ends justify the means. “Winning is the only thing”. I have to respond to my opponents. Fight against evil doers. Enable victimhood. We have experienced 40 years of the downward spiral.
Situation
We are polarized. We have lost trust. We are skeptical and pessimistic. Does this make any sense? We live in the greatest country in the greatest time in history. Our parents and grandparents defeated fascism, nationalism, totalitarianism and communism. They learned to tame business cycles. They tripled international trade for mutual benefit. They established global alliances and organizations to solve problems and reduce the risks of conflicts. They quadrupled real output per person. They reduced global poverty by 80%. They extended human lifespans by two decades. I want to argue that the apparent political conflicts in the US today are a “grand illusion”. First, let’s outline the 5 main dimensions of politics.
The main dimensions of American politics over the last 250 years center on federal power, economic control, civil rights, foreign policy, and cultural change.
Federal Power (National vs. State)
The Debate: How much control the central government has over individual states.
Early Years: Fought over whether the nation was a loose union of states or a strong single country (culminating in the Civil War).
Modern Era: Focuses on federal laws versus state laws regarding healthcare, education, and public safety.
The Economy (Free Market vs. Government Role)
The Debate: How much the government should regulate business and help the poor.
Early Years: Promoted a mostly free market with low taxes and little regulation.
Modern Era: Includes social safety programs like Social Security and government rules for banks and corporations.
Civil Rights (Equality vs. Exclusion)
The Debate: Who gets full rights and protections under the law.
Early Years: Limited rights mostly to white, property-owning men.
Modern Era: Fought for and expanded the rights of enslaved people, women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Foreign Policy (Isolationism vs. Global Action)
The Debate: How much America should get involved in world affairs.
Early Years: Avoided permanent foreign alliances and focused on North America.
Modern Era: Led global organizations and fought in world wars and international conflicts.
Culture and Society (Tradition vs. Progress)
The Debate: How social traditions and moral values shape laws.
Early Years: Tied heavily to religious foundations and agrarian lifestyles.
Modern Era: Centers on shifting social norms, family structures, and individual freedoms.
Analysis and Hope
Conservatives have won the financial battle since LBJ’s “Great Society” proposals to increase the role of the federal government with Reagan’s election and re-election. Political battles, inertia, convenience and special interests have since increased the power of the federal government, especially the presidency. Democrats can now see the dangers of centralized federal power and cooperate with the remaining moderate Republicans to “accept” a reasonable compromise. Fiscal conservatives can join with Democrats to address the federal budget deficit and national debt.
Americans remain committed to a “mixed economy” that is primarily capitalist with relatively limited regulation compared with other “advanced” economies. Again, Republicans won this war with Reagan. They have tried to further deregulate and cut taxes with some results. However, the Trump Republican party is a populist party that mistrusts big business. This is a “tug of war” area, not an existential battle, despite it being positioned this way by both parties.
Democrats (and historical Republicans) won the civil rights war. Some elements of the Trump Republican party oppose the more extreme expression of “civil rights” application and have politically leveraged alleged Democratic overreach. As a country, we have a basic consensus of the 80%.
The struggle between isolationism and global engagement has been rekindled by Trumpian Republicans, overturning more than 50 years of Republican economic globalism. Democrats accepted this approach with the Clinton “third way” of the 1990’s. Trump has made this an emotional “us versus them” issue, conflating defense, economics and immigration. Big business and Wall Street have not fought back. Most Americans don’t want to give up the benefits of cheap imports, NATO, alliances and lower wage service, farm and construction workers. Both parties can limit the real risks of globalization.
Until recently, Democrats had “won” the so-called “culture wars”. Science, progress and secular society would grow forever. A balance with religion, tradition, community, spirituality, and local cultures was not needed. We now have a consensus that the cultural pendulum has swung too far in some ways and that we all have a need to accept a pluralistic society as we did at the nation’s founding. At that time, it was many denominations. Now it is many spiritual and cultural views. The “cultural conservative” base of the Republican Party, IMHO, has rightfully opposed the extinction of traditional cultural views. The Democratic party and its thought leaders can return to its history of both pushing for progress and embracing a diversity of views on how best to live one’s life.
Summary
Americans prefer a moderate role for the federal government. A little less than today. We are not a statist France. Delegate as much as possible to the states. Re-establish “checks and balances” and “the rule of law”.
Americans prefer a mixed economy with relatively low government control and taxes. There is no consensus for radical change.
Americans embrace civil rights for historic categories. They mostly don’t support affirmative action or expansion of categories or perspectives.
Americans prefer the benefits of global engagement AND want their country to be protected. The failure of the Trumpian win/lose approach is increasingly clear.
Americans prefer progress and embrace individual rights to choose religious and cultural beliefs and practices. Most can strongly agree on that.
There are not existential threats on any of these 5 dimensions for two-thirds of Americans. We have to reject politicians, parties and influencers who try to frame extreme conflict when it does not exist.
70% of Americans oppose the construction of large-scale data centers locally. More Democrats oppose building, but this is a rare bipartisan topic that all politicians are digesting and turning into a campaign issue. Why do so many Americans oppose this? Is the opposition well-founded? The most recent Gallup poll identified more than 25 reasons for opposition.
Negative views on AI. Government regulation of AI is inadequate versus its existential threats to humanity. Stop it locally. Like the atomic bomb, nuclear power, chemical and biological weapons, bioengineering, and GMOs people cannot assess the cost/benefit ratio or assess the threats to jobs, white collar jobs, service jobs, manufacturing jobs, health care jobs, society, democracy, working class, etc. The undefined and unlimited risk is so large it must be stopped. Is this logical? Given the lack of congressional, professional, business, university, church or high-tech deep understanding, pausing AI is reasonable. Stopping data center construction is something that local citizens and politicians can do because they don’t have confidence in national leaders. There is a Frankenstein and Godzilla dimension to this.
Excess water usage. Local government approvals should consider water usage. Data centers should be built in places with adequate water supplies. Many have been built or proposed in areas without surplus water supplies. Developers develop. That’s what they do. Local regulators must consider all factors for zoning and development deals. Citizens are not confident that politicians or regulators will make wise decisions. Data centers don’t consume large quantities of water. Local governments can require them to use closed loop system that greatly reduce water usage.
Electricity consumption increases electricity rates.Public utility regulators are charged with spreading costs across all uses. New usage should not increase rates. Regulators can force very large users, like data centers, to pay for some extra costs of start-up and operation.
Electricity consumption threatens grid reliability. States and regions plan 20-30 years in advance. The recent increase in electricity demand and the addition of greater wind/solar power sources makes grid management more challenging. Data centers are not a major threat.
Electricity consumption undermines the transition to green energy sources. Again, this is a state regulatory issue. The blend of fossil versus green energy is a power company and state regulation choice. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and tide sources are increasingly competitive. Natural gas is the “swing” source and coal is uncompetitive.
Data center is an imperfect local land use. From the local community perspective, land could/should be used for farming, parks, nature, community centers, higher tax value uses, greater employment uses, greater total economic value uses, etc. Again, local zoning/regulation should shape this decision. Are local politicians accountable for their decisions?
Data centers are ugly, like cell phone towers, only huge. Another local zoning issue. Does this fit within “light industrial” zoning? It looks like a huge warehouse, without all of the doors and traffic.
NIMBY. I don’t want this locally. Let someone else host it. With proper zoning, data centers don’t harm property values. After construction, traffic is minimal.
Taxpayer subsidies are too high. Probably. Press local politicians. No subsidies are required.
Data center zoning/development/subsidy deals are hidden. Increased transparency is called for today.
Data centers generate local pollution. Another regulation issue. Noise limits for AC and backup generators. This is a minor issue.
Water and electricity usage requires capital investments. Regulated utilities are empowered to set rates to all users based upon total lifetime costs. In general, utility capacity can be added at lower than legacy capacity costs through time. It cannot be grown quickly without rate increases or rate setting that penalizes new users such as data centers or that requires new users to fund/subsidize construction and rates for a while.
Summary
Data center construction is opposed because citizens have lost trust in government, regulators, bureaucrats, politicians, big business, technology, promises, experts and deals. Ouch.
Historically, leaders found ways to work “behind the scenes” to resolve, compromise or guide issues to acceptable conclusions. Perhaps not optimal, wise or representing the people, but reasonable.
We have a crisis of governance. The polarized political parties, legislative gridlock, dueling lawsuits, complex issues, undermining of experts, data and rationality have left us angry and uninterested in problem solving.
As Thomas Paine said during the American Revolution, “these are the times that try men’s souls.” Are the differences insurmountable?
Political Dimensions – Google AI 8/24/2026
The main dimensions of American politics over the last 250 years center on federal power, economic control, civil rights, foreign policy, and cultural change.
Federal Power (National vs. State)
The Debate: How much control the central government has over individual states.
Early Years: Fought over whether the nation was a loose union of states or a strong single country (culminating in the Civil War).
Modern Era: Focuses on federal laws versus state laws regarding healthcare, education, and public safety.
The Economy (Free Market vs. Government Role)
The Debate: How much the government should regulate business and help the poor.
Early Years: Promoted a mostly free market with low taxes and little regulation.
Modern Era: Includes social safety programs like Social Security and government rules for banks and corporations.
Civil Rights (Equality vs. Exclusion)
The Debate: Who gets full rights and protections under the law.
Early Years: Limited rights mostly to white, property-owning men.
Modern Era: Fought for and expanded the rights of enslaved people, women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Foreign Policy (Isolationism vs. Global Action)
The Debate: How much America should get involved in world affairs.
Early Years: Avoided permanent foreign alliances and focused on North America.
Modern Era: Led global organizations and fought in world wars and international conflicts.
Culture and Society (Tradition vs. Progress)
The Debate: How social traditions and moral values shape laws.
Early Years: Tied heavily to religious foundations and agrarian lifestyles.
Modern Era: Centers on shifting social norms, family structures, and individual freedoms.
Analysis and Hope
Our challenges today are mainly political. We, the best educated, wealthiest, most productive and knowledgeable citizens of all time, have allowed politics to be framed as existential battles. They are not. Citizens must step up to oppose the politics of demonization and division.
Conservatives have won the financial battle since LBJ’s “Great Society” proposals to increase the role of the federal government with Reagan’s election and re-election. Political battles, inertia, convenience and special interests have since increased the power of the federal government, especially the presidency. Democrats can now see the dangers of centralized federal power and cooperate with the remaining moderate Republicans to “accept” a reasonable compromise. Fiscal conservatives can join with Democrats to address the federal budget deficit and national debt.
Americans remain committed to a “mixed economy” that is primarily capitalist with relatively limited regulation compared with other “advanced” economies. Again, Republicans won this war with Reagan. They have tried to further deregulate and cut taxes with some results. However, the Trump Republican party is a populist party that mistrusts big business. This is a “tug of war” area, not an existential battle, despite it being positioned this way by both parties.
Democrats (and historical Republicans) won the civil rights war. Some elements of the Trump Republican party oppose the more extreme expression of “civil rights” application and have politically leveraged alleged Democratic overreach. As a country, we have a basic consensus of the 80%.
The struggle between isolationism and global engagement has been rekindled by Trumpian Republicans, overturning more than 50 years of Republican economic globalism. Democrats accepted this approach with the Clinton “third way” of the 1990’s. Trump has made this an emotional “us versus them” issue, conflating defense, economics and immigration. Big business and Wall Street have not fought back. Most Americans don’t want to give up the benefits of cheap imports, NATO, alliances and lower wage service, farm and construction workers. Both parties can limit the real risks of globalization.
Until recently, Democrats had “won” the so-called “culture wars”. Science, progress and secular society would grow forever. A balance with religion, tradition, community, spirituality, and local cultures was not needed. We now have a consensus that the cultural pendulum has swung too far in some ways and that we all have a need to accept a pluralistic society as we did at the nation’s founding. At that time, it was many denominations. Now it is many spiritual and cultural views. The “cultural conservative” base of the Republican Party, IMHO, has rightfully opposed the extinction of traditional cultural views. The Democratic party and its thought leaders can return to its history of both pushing for progress and embracing a diversity of views on how best to live one’s life.
Summary 2
Americans prefer a moderate role for the federal government. A little less than today.
Americans prefer a mixed economy with relatively low government control and taxes. There is no consensus for radical change.
Americans embrace civil rights for historic categories. They mostly don’t support affirmative action or expansion of categories or perspectives.
Americans prefer the benefits of global engagement AND want their country to be protected. The failure of the Trumpian win/lose approach is increasingly clear.
Americans prefer progress and embrace individual rights to choose religious and cultural beliefs and practices. Most can strongly agree on that.
There are not existential threats on any of these 5 dimensions for two-thirds of Americans. We have to reject politicians, parties and influencers who try to frame extreme conflict when it does not exist.
People are driven by their background thoughts which they absorb from our culture. (Freud, Jung, Campbell, Kuhn, Kahneman, Haidt).
We have moved from a Christian/Western Civilization mental background to “A Secular Age” (Taylor, Smith).
It is “possible” that there is no God, no spirit, no meaning, no hope (Existentialism, Postmodernism). We have culturally concluded that this is “true” in some sense despite tremendous evidence to the contrary. (Science and Religion).
The main replacement ideology is one of “expressive individualism” (Bellah, Rieff, Lasch, Taylor, Sacks, Fukuyama). Each individual lives his best life by defining and living by his nature, talents, creative destiny to build an identity. “Be all that you can be”. “Authenticity” becomes the supreme moral value.
This is the world we live in, the one that our children and grandchildren inhabit.
In such a world, community, religion, institutions, idealism, morals, trust and character are much less important.
It is only “individual”, skeptical, insecure, purely materialist “turtles all the way up and all the way down”.
Religion must adapt to this cultural reality.
People still know there is something else, something more to life. Meaning, beauty, love, art. (Esp. James KA Smith)
Each local congregation must find ways to meet these needs.
We meet these needs by living good lives despite these challenges. We live our faith. We actively address the philosophical/theological void and confusion.
We welcome others to join us in our real-world activities, not just or primarily worship service. (be missional)
A revolution of thought, priorities and activities is required to share “the good news” with our brothers and sisters.
A. – Build bridges, not walls A. – Celebrate differences A. – Respect every story, welcome every voice A. – See the person, not the label B. – Be civil B. – Civility is the golden rule in action B. – Civility: pass it on C. – A house divided cannot stand C. – Different branches, common roots C. – Liberty for one, liberty for all C. – More alike than different C. – Out of many, one. C. – Stronger together. C. – There is more than enough to go around C. – We have much in common C. – We’re all in this together D. – Dialogue delivers D. – Listen to understand, speak to connect D. – One conversation at a time D. – Quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger D. – Speak to connect, not to correct D. – Use your inside voice E. – Look on the bright side E. – Naturally positive E. – Think win-win F. – Bold hearts, kind minds F. – Courageously engaged F. – Dare to disagree with dignity G. – Civility: pay it forward G. – Give respect. Get respect. G. – Kindness breeds kindness G. – Respect reaps respect H. – Infinite human value I. – Be kind I. – Blessed are the peacemakers I. – Kindness is our common language I. – Politeness is free J. – Be proactive J. – Begin with the end in mind J. – Choose your battles J. – Living by design K. – Democracy thrives on respect K. – I cherish my civic duties K. – Influence is power K. – Stronger arguments, kinder words L. – Be the neighbor you want to have L. – Build up each other L. – Can’t we all just get along? L. – Criticize acts, compliment people L. – Disagree better: respect is a choice L. – Every interaction matters. L. – Excuse me, did you drop your civility? L. – I’m OK. You’re OK. L. – Plays nicely with others L. – We grow together L. – What you do speaks so loudly, I can’t hear what you say. M. – A little respect goes a long way M. – I am my brother’s keeper M. – Love your enemy M. – Mutual respect M. – Respect despite disagreement. M. – Results and respect N. – Choose to be accountable N. – Do the right thing N. – I can always choose N. – My choices, my impact. N. – Take care of yourself O. – Character counts O. – Civility is always welcome O. – Cool heads, warm hearts O. – Trust is earned O. – Your reputation precedes you P. – Address incivility
In 2015, the Fishers Rotary Club created a quarter acre vegetable garden on the Fishers Christ the Savior Lutheran Church property. It’s members and the church drilled wells, installed sprinkler systems, built a shed, acquired equipment, installed access paths, established relations with local partners and food pantries to grow and distribute more than 4,000 pounds of fresh produce each year. Praise be to God!
In 2023 the Hamilton County Master Gardeners Association assumed the lead role for this community garden. The group has expanded to serving 5 local food pantries. It works with Volunteer Fishers to provide opportunities for citizens to help. The group delivers more than 3,000 pounds of produce to the food pantries. It raises $3,000 from supporters and $3,000 from HCMGA to fund expenses. It employs 2,000 volunteer hours annually. It serves the food pantries for the 6 months of May through October. The group plants 60 different crops each year in 3 planting cycles. It plants a half-dozen companion crops/flowers, rotates its 9 gardens and plants 3 cover crops each year. The group supports bee hives, hosts open houses and employs scout volunteers.
One-quarter acre is 120 18-foot long, 4-foot wide rows of 1-2-3-4 plantings.
3-4,000 pounds of fresh produce serves 8-10,000 people/servings. The retail value is roughly $15,000.
Why bother?
30 recurring volunteers have an opportunity to serve their neighbors.
20 “random” youth and community volunteers visit once, contribute and serve their community.
3-4 organizations invest $3,000 with a 5X return to serve their community.
400 local “master gardeners” have an opportunity to learn about vegetable gardening.
5 food pantries have dependable supporters for their valuable work.
Most importantly, food pantry clients have fresh, organic produce as part of their weekly visit. They greatly value fresh produce. They know that the local community invested time, talent and treasurer to make this happen. They are welcomed, truly welcomed into our community.
