February
1, 2001
No Help Wanted: Why Democrats Oppose Bush's Faith-Based Program
By Tom Bevan
George W. Bush's faith-based approach to social services is a
terrible idea - it might actually help people. In all seriousness,
if you ever had any doubt that the Democratic party cares more
about protecting the bloated, ambivalent interests of lobbyists
and government bureaucracies than it does about the poor there
shouldn't be any doubt now.
The ink on Bush's faith-based proposal hadn't even dried before
some Democrats were out decrying the impending "breach"
of the separation between church and state. Watching liberals
running around wailing about the sacrosanctity of the U.S. Constitution
(about this part of it anyway) causes more than a few chuckles
among conservatives.
What isn't nearly as funny is the lengths to which liberals will
go in their drive to secularize American society. Barry Lynn,
Director of that venerable organization Americans for Separation
for Church and State, had the temerity to claim that Bush's proposal
was "a vast payback to the religious right for help in his
election" and that it "affirmatively allows religious
bigots to get money." Lynn's arguments are so empty they
are almost laughable. Almost, that is, if they weren't so incredibly
dangerous.
The idea that a Catholic can't serve a cup of soup to a homeless
person or provide shelter to a battered woman without thumping
the bible and forcing them to say a Hail Mary is ridiculous. So
too is the notion that churches will somehow fall victim to political
influence or become unduly burdened with government mandated red
tape and paperwork. Religious institutions can voluntarily choose
to compete for federal dollars and be held accountable for results
or not.
Most of us - liberal or conservative - cannot claim to be experts
on faith based social service policy. Nor can we accurately predict
the impact Bush's plan may have on the interaction between religious
institutions and our system of government. What we can say with
some objectivity is that the President's proposal seems to provide
adequate deference to the separation of church and state, sensitivity
to freedom of religious beliefs, and the understanding that faith
based organizations can provide a positive complement to government
programs without attempting to replace them.
So it strikes me as more than a little ironic that members of
the party supposedly dedicated to helping "those in need"
would rush so quickly to oppose a plan designed to do exactly
that. And though Democrats generally do place a high priority
on ensuring that all traces of religion are stripped from our
public lives, the real issue here is protecting the federal bureaucracy's
"turf" and the belief that the government is capable
of solving most (if not all) of society's problems.
Democrats have always rejected, and will continue to reject ideas
that don't involve either more money or more government because
they mistakenly equate these items with compassion. Republicans,
on the other hand, believe results are best achieved by harnessing
the power of marketplace competition and trusting in civic responsibility.
This is one of the reasons why Republicans are now the ones offering
progressive programs for social services, Social Security (private
savings accounts), and education (vouchers). Meanwhile, liberals
- or "progressives" as they like to be called - are
left defending the status quo of failed policies and outmoded
thought.
Bush's faith based plan is worth supporting for the simple reason
that there are so many in America who need the support. If we
can find a way to do more and do better for these people then
we should embrace innovation and pursue new ideas with urgency.
And, while we should be mindful of Constitutional concerns, we
should also always remember that our country was founded on and
organized around the ideal of religious good works.
Tom Bevan writes for RealClearPolitics
