Compassionate Conservatism: Reforming the Republican Party, Redefining Poverty

“We found that government can spend money but it can’t put hope in our hearts or a sense of purpose in our lives; this is done by churches and synagogues and mosques and charities that warm the cold of life. A quiet river of goodness and kindness that cuts through stone.”
-President George W. Bush

During his election night for Governor of Texas in 1998, President George W. Bush expressed the desire to give the GOP a “compassionate conservative” face. Not understanding this definition of conservatism was long in the making, pundits unleashed their cynicism towards the President’s purportedly fluffy words. To the Left, compassion had effectively meant voting for welfare spending. To the Right, compassion meant breaking away from the status quo of welfare reform and income redistribution. Unfortunately, September 11 preempted the debate on President Bush’s signature domestic agenda. Yet as the 2004 presidential elections approach, Bush should balance his commitment to the war on terror with his conviction in the promise of compassionate conservatism.

The concept of compassionate conservatism is especially powerful because it combines the conservative imperative of limited government with the communitarian ideal of civil renewal. Thus, compassionate conservatives seek to limit the role of big government in welfare spending by giving more power and autonomy to smaller, grass-roots organizations, namely faith-based institutions proven to be more effective combatants in the war against poverty, drugs and crime. These institutions provide real and tangible services, but their ultimate contribution, personal change and challenge through faith-based initiatives, cannot be quantified.

Traditionally, government funding to faith-based institutions involves a multitude of stipulations that ultimately hinder the mission instead of helping the cause. Predominately, funding is granted to secular activities, precluding many organizations from accepting funds in order to sustain their mission and keep faith a part of their everyday activities. Consequently, many organizations are put in the difficult situation of choosing between the provisions of a spiritual or material service to those seeking their help. In buttressing the notion of organizational autonomy and the free, uninhibited use of government funds, President Bush asserted, “We will never ask an organization to compromise its core values and spiritual mission to get the help it needs.”

To compassionate conservatives, faith plays a key role in poverty fighting; consequently, faith-based initiatives are seen as a more effective channel for government spending than federal welfare programs miring the poor in a self-perpetuating process of dependency. In contrast to government handouts, faith-based programs seek to eradicate the contagion of poverty through personal challenge and personal change. In the early 1980s, Christian conservative Howard Amahnson conducted a study finding poverty to be a problem of both material and spiritual provenance—most people do not believe their situation can change. In the same vein, Marvin Olasky, advisor to President Bush, elucidates this point in stating, “economic redistribution by itself does not affect the attitudes that frequently undergird poverty.”