In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

e p i l o g u e Blood and Grit The American red cross remains a powerful quasi-governmental philanthropy in the twenty-first century. Just as clara Barton filled gaps in the civil War Washington bureaucracy with her benevolent enterprises, the Arc even now addresses needs not met by formal government or the private sector. it does so, as it has all along, by channeling the goodwill of ordinary people to assist other people in distress. The Arc’s workers and volunteers, supported by its fund-raising powerhouse, still provide individual -level aid to victims of disasters and humanitarian crises, still deliver educational services such as first aid and water-safety instruction, and still provide assistance to members of the military and their families. The Arc has also long served as the largest blood supplier in the United states, operating a collection, processing, and distribution operation that meets nearly half the nation’s medical needs for blood and blood products. The organization has not only survived major upheavals in American governance and society; it has grown into a multibillion-dollar nonprofit enterprise. The survival of the American red cross becomes all the more remarkable when one considers the expansion of government agencies into its traditional territory since World War ii. Federal, state, and local governments increased their involvement in disaster preparedness, civil defense, and social welfare activities between 1950 and the 1970s, provoking numerous renegotiations of the Arc’s collaborative working relationships in these areas. The military expanded its nursing and medical activities as well as other services, curtailing the Arc’s role in aiding service members in World War ii and since. The federal government employed its burgeoning foreign aid programs as important tools in its cold war arsenal, leaving the Arc only a supporting role in relief of distress abroad. social changes since the late 1960s—especially an increased public willingness to openly criticize and scrutinize established organizations—have proved equally challenging to the Arc. in the late 1960s and 1970s, the red cross culture of voluntarism suffered amid women’s increasing role in the workforce; the unpopularity of the Vietnam War also undermined support for the organization’s activities. in the 1980s, as the 262 Epilogue Arc struggled to reinvent itself, the Aids epidemic threatened the safety of its blood products and led to criticism and lawsuits. The organization rebounded in the 1990s, with new leadership and a renewed focus on blood safety, fund-raising, and disaster relief. Then in the early 2000s, the organization again found itself in the spotlight for its work following the september 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and hurricane Katrina and for its international disaster-relief operations. Although it again received criticism and underwent organizational shake-ups, none of these developments could dislodge or destroy the American red cross; it had become too deeply embedded in the fabric of American culture and civil society.1 The Arc’s persistent preeminence through all these social changes demonstrates that herbert hoover’s ideal model of governance—utilizing privately funded entities to serve public ends—did not die with advent of the new deal or the postwar expansion of government. This model of the quasi-public “federal instrumentality” (a term the Arc uses to describe its status) has continued to thrive amid the growth and consolidation of government at the federal, state, and local levels. in the often ad hoc pattern of post–World War ii state building, which embraced what the plain-spoken President harry Truman called technical “know-how” as a key tool in both domestic and international endeavors, the organization’s established expertise in disaster relief and refugee assistance, together with its growing expertise in blood processing, made it a welcome partner in numerous federal government initiatives. Furthermore, as humanitarianism increasingly became an expert business, the Arc’s experience, international network of relationships, and officially neutral status often made it seem like the most logical entity to carry out such missions. This does not mean that the postwar success of the American red cross vindicates hoover. Although he can be credited with recognizing the unique value of quasipublic institutions like the Arc as instruments of governance, the continued increase in Arc fund-raising since the new deal proved unequivocally that the expansion of government into the emergency social welfare arena did not destroy the American spirit of mutual aid or voluntarism, as hoover warned it would. hoover also oversimplified and undersold the Arc when he insisted it was driven primarily by...

Share