Meaninful foreign aid reform has this holy grailish quality to it. In Washington, when there's a conversation about any aspect of development assistance underway, more often than not a frustrated speaker or discussant will exclaim that, "fundamentally, U.S. foreign assistance is broken." But the fix -- and there are no shortage of ideas about how to fix foreign aid -- seems always beyond the political horizon.

This blog notes often the importance of readying an advocacy effort to seize the all-important window of political opportunity when it presents itself. I've been keeping track of aid reform discussions for almost five years now, and I can't think of one obvious window of opportunity. Sure, we had our moment of breath-holding when Randall Tobias rolled out the undeniably catchy "F process" with its goal to consolidate State and USAID. That effort enjoyed attention from the president, but it suffered from zero public will, minimal political will (particularly as Tobias stonewalled/ignored Congressional involvement throughout the process) and a whole lot of neat little boxes that organize themselves nicely until those charged with carrying out U.S. aid programs try to work out what they actually mean in the real world.

But a large-scale fix may at last be in the works. Not only have advocates for an aid system overhaul lately shown signs of resisting jargon and crafting savvy, understandable messages about why we need to fix the system, but a very wide range of actors recently united behind a detailed description of what needs to be fixed and how to go about it. Yesterday the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network, comprised of many think tank and practitioner notables, released its proposal, titled "New Day, New Way: U.S. Foreign Assistance for the 21st Century."

Clearly there was a lot of good leg-work behind the proposal, not only in finding a common position between many wonks and organizations that take distinct stands on issues related to foreign aid (how often do the Hoover Institution and Oxfam America hold hands and speak as one?), but also in eliciting significant Congressional support from relevant committee figures, including Howard Berman (chairman of House Foreign Affairs), Nita Lowey (head of House Foreign Ops appropriations subcommittee) and Chuck Hagel (member of Senate Foreign Relations).

Even the report title evokes hope that it's possible to solve our problematic aid structures and, by extension, address poverty in a more effective way. This is more than another weary stab at what things should look like by a bunch of academics or beauracrats; the pieces -- and a sense of agreement among the major players -- are there to actually rewrite the aged Foreign Assistance Act. And a new president could conceivably do it.

The challenge, as ever, will be to press for depoliticized aid, as this proposal does, while standing behind the proposal's other key driver: aid is not touchy feely any more; it's about national security, an important foreign policy tool in dealing with "serious" topics like terrorism. Of course, nothing is so politicized as the struggle against terrorism, and there is no guarantee that a consolidated, efficient cabinet-level foreign aid agency that earns its respect as a serious component of national security and foreign policy would prioritize long-term development over short-term political considerations. After all, the U.S. gave away plenty of strategic foreign aid in the form of ESF funds during the Cold War, but no one's kidding themselves (anymore) that this counts as a real effort at poverty reduction or long-run development. I have not read the report at any length, so there may be good thinking that addresses such concerns. But I suspect it will always be difficult to make the case for aid that is both dedicated first and foremost to the poor yet also a legitimate national security tool.