“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.”
Most importantly, compassionate conservatism emphasizes a renewal of citizen assertiveness. The involvement of citizens in their communities and the caring actions of those individuals is paramount to effecting positive, sustainable change. Such measures reflect a larger civic duty and responsibility to your fellow compatriots, helping to alleviate despair and provide hope through one-on-one interaction with those in need. The most basic means of providing help is accentuated, a progression starting on the micro level of the family and ending on the macro level of the federal government. In his book, Compassionate Conservatism, Olasky explains, “Compassionate conservatives do not merely give the poor a safety net that may turn into a hammock; they provide a trampoline…It’s easy to write a check but hard to check pride and ignorance at the door when dealing with those who don’t get much respect, or to travel to a town that is outside the middle-class comfort zone.” Not only will the virtues of compassionate conservatism be a challenge to those in need of its service, but also to those servicing those needs. With a call for an involved citizenry, compassionate conservatives call on a renewed ethic of volunteerism in America.
Compassionate conservatism emphasizes diversity—a choice of programs made available to individuals ensuring no one is involved in a program against his or her volition. While welfare programs must be effective, we must remember quantity is not synonymous with quality. At the end of the day, what is happening to these human beings? In his book, Olasky further submits, “Faith-based organizations have shown that the best way to teach self-esteem and respect for law is to teach that we are esteemed by a wonderful God who set out for us rules of conduct that benefit society and ourselves.” Requiring separation of church from state-funded programs is essentially asking those programs to throw away their mission. It is that mission that bears effectiveness. As with venturing in any unexplored area, a pragmatic approach suggests checking what does and does not work when implementing new welfare programs. Creating sustainable changes is paramount to the mission of creation a compassionate culture in America.
A glimpse into the Sacred Heart treatment center in St. Louis, Missouri is just one compelling example of conservative compassion. There, volunteers spend their days and nights with crack-addicted mothers and crack babies, helping them learn how to read and write, find jobs, and care for their children. There, those women have been given a second chance at life. Without such grassroots, local initiatives and the enamoring hearts of caring men and women, similar Americans will not be given such opportunities and consequently fall victim to a bankrupt and inefficient system entrapping them in abject poverty.
Sacred Heart is one of the many private initiatives undertaken under President Bush’s compassionate conservative agenda. In order for the reformation and revitalization of a society plagued by the scourge of poverty, we, as citizens, must play an active role in this fight. As the president accurately stated, “Government must be carefully limited—but strong and active and respected within those bounds. It must act in the common good—and the good is not common until is it shared by those in need.” Ultimately, compassionate conservatism is predicated on the transforming power of faith. Americans from all walks of life need to join together, undertaking private actions to ameliorate some of our most redoubtable problems. Compassionate conservatism is the single force with the ability to write the epitaph of a poverty epidemic so enmeshed in a country standing for everything antithetical to such a vitiating dynamic. President Bush must not let his global “war on terror” overshadow this revolutionary war on poverty.
