Posted on 01/16/2009 6:25:14 AM PST by Caleb1411
As the Bush administration ended, reporters who credited or discredited me with developing "compassionate conservatism" asked for an assessment. Most hoped that I'd dump on Bush, as so many others have. I didn't oblige, but honesty requires the mention of disappointment.
Governor and then President Bush wanted to fight poverty, alcoholism, addiction, and other social problems. He saw faith-based approaches (from personal experience) as an effective way to do battle. He wanted them to garner additional resources and left the how-to questions to his advisors.
As a volunteer chairman of a Bush task force in 1999, I was pleased when the candidate adopted my proposal for charity tax credits that would be part of a decentralized anti-poverty plan. On July 22, 1999, in his major policy speech regarding compassionate conservatism, he spoke of tax credits, promising that "individuals will choose who conducts this war on poverty—and their support won't be filtered through layers of government officials."
Other advisors, though, had a second objective: Maintain the Washington grants economy, but end discrimination against religious groups by creating a level playing field for all fund-seeking organizations. As a teammate I agreed to promote both objectives and naively assumed that all religious groups, not only semi-secularized ones, would be welcomed.
A decade later, it's clear that objective one got only to first base. With a few exceptions (the White House finally set up several voucher programs, including Access to Recovery for addicts and alcoholics), individuals are not choosing and layers of government officials are. Why? Maybe it's harder for folks arriving in Washington to lay aside power than it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.
But what happened to the second objective? I traveled recently to Indianapolis, where Bush in 1999 gave his policy-setting speech regarding compassionate conservatism, and asked inner-city innovator Tim Street (WORLD, Dec. 18, 1999) what had changed.
Street said anti-poverty work is "not a whole lot different on the ground. There's a recognition that federal dollars are available, but a lot of people understand that strings are involved and they don't want to go there. Nothing's really changed."
I sat down with four key figures at Wheeler Mission Ministries, a longtime Christian homeless shelter in Indianapolis, and saw there as well a lack of enthusiasm:
0 Rick Alvis, chief executive officer: "We thought the federal government was going to come alongside us. Then we started hearing, 'Can you change your program and take out the spiritual angle?'"
0 Larry Wright, chief operating officer: "We said, 'Hold on, this is not what it was supposed to be.' And with government funding you always have to be aware that it's 'here today, gone tomorrow.' You don't want to get hooked on it."
0 Cal Nelson, chief program officer: "The game is set up by government. You play their game or you don't get in. . . . Much better to have vouchers, free and clear. . . . Put the decision in the hands of people rather than a bureaucrat getting his ego stroked."
0 Steve Kerr, chief development officer: "The reporting process was so encumbering to us. We would have had to hire a person just to do it."
Alvis also noted that it's "expensive to go after grants." He cited one lobbying group that wanted $10,000 to $12,000 a month for a retainer and cautioned that Wheeler might have to wait two years to see a grant forthcoming. Alvis mused, "Maybe we should have hired them. Another rescue mission retained that company and received a $1 million grant."
I also spoke with the head of an Indianapolis evangelical program that received a "capacity-building grant" of $750,000 over three years, with funds to be used not for programs but to improve fundraising and technology, and to pay for consultants. Much of the federal effort has emphasized building capacity in the suites to apply for the next grant. Too little has affected lives on the streets.
The tee-ball games that TeamBush had for kids on the White House lawn were a sweet element of the departing administration. The sad part is that Bush staffers have teed up the ball perfectly for the new administration to send taxpayer dollars to Obama supporters at liberal religious groups that swing votes but don't change lives.
Perhaps it sounds cold, but why don’t the guys that want to do this stuff just do it and forget the Feds? Of course there will be strings, and a dumbing down of the spriritual angle (to satisfy the voracious God-haters). Let it go, get back to work and forget the handout. We are becoming a dependent nation where even “faith-based” entities need government or they are bitter.
“Compassionate Conservatism” is the foulest of curses. It took a vibrant party that was ascendent in the mid-to-late 1990s and destroyed it. It witnessed politicians who were elected on the promise of bringing small government back to Washington turning into bigger government whores than the Dems.
After World War II, no one wanted to be named Adolph anymore because of the foul association it had with Hitler. I hope this cancer of Compassionate Conservatism (aka Rockefeller Republicanism) has the same fate. I can’t explain how much I hate it.
“Compassionate Conservatism” is neither.
And I’ve ALWAYS said that.
A grant to pay for consultants...I’m speechless.
Colonel, USAFR
“Serving the office, not the man”
Suicidal, alright, but at least it is "benevolent" and "altruist" and protects a Conservative from being called a "racist", country be-damned in the process.
As Reagan said: the phrase "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is not a good thing to hear.
It is actually rather queer to observe, almost surreal in a sense.
Methinks it is akin to a turkey telling a pilgrim on the chopping block at Thanksgiving, "thanks for at least having the common courtesy of using a sharp hatchet."
During the 1950's, "Compassionate conservatism" was called "Modern Republicanism," and the case for this brand of what was essentially "welfare state lite" was argued in books such as A Republican Looks at His Party (Harper, 1956). However, with "modern Republicanism" as its guiding philosophy, the GOP steadily lost influence and was finally routed in the 1958 elections. By the end of the decade, "Modern Republicanism" was on the way out, as the conservative faction led by Barry Goldwater began to revive the party.
Well THERE'S your problem--that stuff isn't in the Constitution. Or did that never cross your mind?
I closed two of those threads last night and one so far this morning. Not one mention of wide-open borders, horrible monetary policy, out-of-control spending. I wish the President and Laura the very best that their lives have to offer, including peace and prosperity. Can't, however, fawn and praise as though he was one of the great presidents.
I've never seen anything like it, ignoring such blatant facts and realities, all for the sake of keeping sacred cows alive. It's not very academically honest if you ask me, but I suppose it is a viewpoint held in some quarters on FR.
One thing for sure; not a one of those people must have had a loved one in their family slain by an illegal alien or run down by an undocumented drunk driver, such as were thousands of our poor fellow American during eight years (and of course under previous administrations).
I share your opinion about “compassionate conservatism.”
Thanks for posting it.
Most days of this administration, I have been hard-pressed to articulate the difference between compassionate conservatism and liberalism.
I was on a post a few days ago, and the Bush people called in the mods and pinged our leader as well...there was some off color humor granted and most of us were not singing Bush’s praises, but...lots of whining and tattling lately.
The Country has been dragged left by a resolute leftist agenda and the Compassionate Conservative is actually the Liberal of 40 years ago. Conservatives have become more and more left out because we have fought the wrong battles the wrong way. I don’t know what to do, but we had a resurgence with RWR, sadly this was destroyed by the Compassionate Bush 1 & 2.
There’s nothing surprising about the way things turned out. Of course the state doesn’t give out money with no strings attached (for that matter, nor should it). However nice it might be to fantasize about receiving government largess without having to pay the cost of more government control and regulation; we have to live in the real world were such is impossible. And no, Olasky’s not getting away with claiming that he at least had ‘good intentions’ - every one has intentions, many of them good; but in the end we’re all judged according to the results of our actions rather than the altrusitic thinking with which we were motivated.
No one in America who is serious about "fighting poverty" would support and promote programs that sap initiative, reward indolence and laziness and enable able bodied people to live as parasites on the hard earned money extorted as taxes from others.
They would not encourage and promote the ongoing addition of millions of foreigners, legal and illegal, to the ranks of the poor and needy living on government programs financed by taxpayers.
A society cannot defeat poverty when it institutes laws and policies designed to discourage self reliance and to ensure a never ending supply of new "victims".
George Bush has compassion but was not serious about "fighting poverty".
Yep. Not to mention that it has taken our country closer to the brink of ruin than it has been in many years.
btt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.