THOMAS OLIPHANT
Compassionate conservatism’s futureMANY reporters are bored by it. From July 1 to Aug. 15, 2000, Lexis-Nexis recorded 441 major stories about compassionate conservatism, but for the same period this year, only 37. Many politicians dismiss its effectiveness. Pollsters suspect that talking about his faith-based initiative probably loses George Bush more support among secularists than it gains him among the religious. Many conservative Christians dismiss its usefulness. Bush has made it clear that no federal dollars will support verbal evangelizing, and those who most ardently talk about Christ don't want grants with strings tied to them.
But the president apparently still believes in compassionate conservatism and his faith-based initiative. In an Aug. 3 speech, he insisted that " Government needs to stand on the side of faith-based groups." He pushed on to emphasize "separation of church and state -- the state should never be the church, and the church certainly should never be the state. But..." -- here's where Bush makes secularists mad -- "the truth of the matter is, there's a culture inside government which resents and fears religious charities, and has discriminated against them." He's right. Uncle Sam-I-am gives billions of dollars to secular antipoverty groups but receives intense interrogation whenever a serious religious organization comes under consideration: Will you fund green eggs and ham? Is all this faith-based stuff a sham? Will some church get a new computer? Will that be OK with David Souter? What if cultists want a grant? Should my taxes fund their rant? The compassionate conservative push four years ago was an attempt to end government bias against religious groups that perform needed public services . As governor and during the 2000 campaign, Bush had advocated creation of "a level playing field" for effective antipoverty groups, whatever their motivation. But his legislative package in 2001 suffered play-it-both-ways attacks: Churches are purportedly so strong that they'll take over government and so weak that government will take over them. Hammered in Congress, the administration in 2002 and 2003 emphasized regulatory change by executive order, with the goal of allowing all groups, whether secular or religious, to compete for funds. What difference have regulatory changes made? Two examples: the Department of Housing and Urban Development no longer redlines inner-city homeless shelters run by Christians that apply for HUD funds . And the Department of Labor allows recipients of job-training vouchers to prepare to be church administrators as well as barbers or truck drivers. These changes should not be a big deal, but ardent secularists often become frantic at the thought of anti-poverty organizations expressing their religious identity in their programs. Street-level poverty fighters tend to be pragmatic, though: They want poor people fed and clothed and housed, and they worry less about the motivation of those who offer services than about the quality of the services themselves. The future of compassionate conservatism, therefore, might depend on the results of the conflict between secular theoreticians and those who see the desperate ground-level needs. For the latter, the public good is served when addicts change their ways, whether because of a belief in Jesus or in the tooth fairy. If Bush is reelected, the attempt to create a level playing field for all poverty-fighting groups will continue and, I hope, expand. I also hope the administration will go beyond grant-making and emphasize social service tax credits and vouchers that decentralize funding by empowering direct givers and receivers of aid. The good news is that, regardless of what happens in Washington, much is being done by compassionate people around the country, most of whom are motivated by religious faith. They see a problem, such as kids adrift after school, and decide to do something about it. They act whether or not anyone else supports them. They deserve our support.
Marvin Olasky is a senior fellow of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
