Faith-based initiatives face tough political realities
When President Bush campaigned in 2000, faith-based initiatives were at the center of his “compassionate conservative” pitch, and candidate Obama promised to renew the effort to help faith-based charities secure enhanced access to government assistance and funding. But the success of faith-based initiatives has been limited both by conservatives, skeptical of government-facilitated charity efforts, and by liberals, skeptical of faith-based projects. They have further suffered from the suspicion that they might be used, by either Party, to garner political favor with influential religious groups. From these nine years of experience, it is evident that faith-based initiatives have not, and arguably cannot, grow into a nationally significant piece of the poverty-solving puzzle.
Stuck in the Middle
Following through on his campaign promises, Bush signed an executive order creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives early in his administration. But political support for Bush’s pet project was difficult to establish. As Byron Johnson, director of the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, told the HPR, “A major part of it was a complete misunderstanding of the initiative. Many people on the right actually opposed the initiative … because it would make faith-based groups secular.” And liberals were no friendlier. Typical liberal support for programs to help the needy was overridden by the concern that faith-based charities would capitalize on the opportunity to proselytize to those they served.
Criticisms and Constraints
Another criticism levied against Bush’s faith-based office is that it was used to curry political favor among certain religious groups. Leah Daughtry, a fellow at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, told the HPR that these concerns were legitimate “given the clear political overtones of the Bush White House.” In the eyes of Democrats, faith-based initiatives were intended to solidify Bush’s support base in Christian communities, extensions of the administration’s stance on stem-cell research, abortion rights, and the Terri Schiavo case of 2003 to 2005. Given unfavorable reactions from both sides of the political spectrum, it is likely that Bush was steered away from expending too much political and financial capital on his primary compassionate-conservative project.
Another knock against Bush’s faith-based initiatives is that they never delivered much in the way of actual aid, perhaps precisely because of political constraints. E.J. Dionne, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told the HPR that “[Bush] talked a lot about helping the poor through faith-based groups, but in general … compassionate conservatism didn’t direct a lot of money to these groups.” Political pressures, then, led to policy failures.
Change or More of the Same?
Perhaps surprising many of his supporters, candidate Obama pledged to renew Bush’s efforts to help faith-based charities get assistance from the government. Obama’s party affiliation, as well as his campaign promise to bar employment discrimination by groups receiving government money, might be enough to purchase the Left’s goodwill on this issue (though it is notable that he has since declared he will consider employment discrimination on a case-by-case basis). But, as Dionne pointed out, Obama has clearly decided to put other social reform projects on the back burner “until health care passes, in the first year.” Despite the appearance of change, including the office’s name change (now the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships), not much has actually been done to alter — or, as promised, expand — the involvement of the government in helping faith-based charities. Furthermore, Johnson believes that criticisms similar to those that plagued Bush may also apply to Obama. “There will be some who say that he will use [the faith-based office] to promote more social programs that are not faith-based,” he told the HPR.
The dream of a compassionate-conservative project capable of uniting Republican fondness for religious groups with Democratic enthusiasm for government aid has, so far, been a bust. Opposition from both sides of the aisle largely wiped out Bush’s initial enthusiasm for faith-based partnerships, and Obama has shown little inclination to upset the status quo. The goal of a successful intermediary between government and faith-based charity groups has yet to be realized, and we have reason to suspect it will not be any time soon.
