Amy Sullivan: I'm Shocked!
To say there are few surprises in David Kuo's new book, Tempting Faith, is not to suggest that it is uninteresting or to be skipped. On the contrary, the book provides a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at how political priorities get made and carried out in the Bush White House.It's just that, as much respect as I have for people like Jim and David who believed in the promise of the faith-based initiative at the beginning, I have always thought of it as I have the invasion of Iraq: Not necessarily a bad idea, but given what we knew of Bush and his advisors, there was no reason to think it would turn out well.
The initiative was useful, after all, only inasmuch as it promoted the image of Bush as a devout man of faith who had rescued religious groups from the discrimination they had suffered at the hands of government (and probably liberal, it was implied) bureaucrats. Indeed, there were a few instances of grantmakers stupidly refusing to consider an application because the organization had a "religious" word like "Jewish" in its title. But those were few and far between, and easily fixed with an authoritative "Cut it out!" memo. Or an executive order. Take your pick.
Once it came down to the hard work of actually putting the government's money where Bush's mouth was, however, well, there was always something else higher up the priority list. Like the elimination of the estate tax, for example. The most significant piece of Bush's faith-based initiative--tax credits for charitable giving--was pushed aside early on to make way for the repeal of the estate tax. Compassion in action can wait; we've got some rich donors to reward!
In some ways, it's easy to excuse the Bushies--it was sinfully easy for them to get away with their bait-and-switch. The truly conservative religious types, Kuo makes clear throughout the book, were never really that interested in fighting poverty to begin with. When Ralph Reed tried to start The Samaritan Fund in the 1990s, he was only able to raise $500,000 of his $10 million goal. Poverty just doesn't get the blood racing like abortion or gay marriage. In addition, one group targeted by the faith-based initiative--suburban moms who are keen on compassionate conservatism--only needed to hear Bush's rhetoric on the subject, not check his record. And religious minorities, perhaps the most important constituency for the program, were courted through a series of regional conferences and meetings that held out the promise of funds. Unless they each checked with each other, it seemed like somebody was getting money, even if it wasn't them.
My very favorite line in the book is uttered by an aide in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives on the morning after Bush has finally been told that his grand $8 billion a year initiative was really more like a $30 million cardboard cut-out. "We've got to make it look like we're doing something," the staffer told the various faith-based staffers at the agencies. "Stop whatever you are working on and focus on making it look like we're doing something."
Focus on making it look like we're doing something. Because you wouldn't want to actually do something. No, not when you can get political credit for looking like you're doing something instead.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
To put it mildly, the President campaigned on the idea that government is ineffective and then he's spent eight years proving it. That said, I know that our reasonable conservative friends and our uncommitted friends immediately will think, "That's not fair, all politicians are that way! Amy is just Bush bashing!"
In fairness to Amy, I would argue that this President has been worse about that than any since the modern media has made the presidency more transparent. I would further argue that he is the current President and criticisms of former Presidents, regardless of party, are at best marginally relevant.
All that said, I believe in a politics of hope and not in a politics of despair. I also believe in getting as clear a picture of reality as possible and not cherry picking reality confirm to my lowered, cynical expectations.
In that spirit, if others have positive or negative comments about this or a former White House, I'd like to invite everyone to address these examples with a focus on what it means for the present and future.>
Posted by: Daniel | October 17, 2006 3:43 PM
Thank you Amy Sullivan for your commentary.
I haven't read Kuo's book yet, though the latest smear campaign against him by the Religious Right should not shock us--their bitter partisanship and steady stream of personal attacks are now well-documented.
I'm reminded of when Bush was invited to clarify his prideful claim that "Christ" was his "favorite philosopher" on national TV. When kindly asked, Bush responded with the knowledge and maturity of a third-grade bully.
Since Bush couldn't answer the question, he tried to browbeat the moderator. Some Christianity.>
Posted by: Tenoch | October 17, 2006 3:53 PM
The Carter White House was accessible to people. For example, when Carter found out the Democratic Women of Tennessee were traveling to sightsee in DC he made sure they got to come see him and sit a spell in the Oval Office. The Carter Library gives out his home address if you'd like to send him mail. In his infamous 'malaise' speech Carter listed many anecdotal inputs he had gotten from regular people criticizing him. Carter's White House was very often transparent and accessible.
Whatever else anyone could say about Carter, I think this out to be the gold standard for the current President and all those who follow.>
Posted by: Daniel | October 17, 2006 3:55 PM
Good points.
But will the religious right really come to believe they've been had, which may lead to a shrinking # of conservative Christians at the polls, or even, shriek, voting for a Democrat? Or will they just call this "liberal spin"? Or will they just keep voting Republican because they say it's still better than the alternative?>
Posted by: Bob L | October 17, 2006 3:59 PM
First off, please remember that in the conservative worldview, caring for the poor is not primarily the responsibility of the federal government. Private charities, churches, and extended families bear the bulk of responsibility here, with states and local governments in a secondary role. The federal government is typically seen as the aid provider of last resort, mainly in cases of natural disaster or crisis.
So the idea of a federal government anti-poverty program is not guaranteed to set our little hearts all a flutter, even if it involves faith-based organizations.
I think some of the revelations coming out of the Kuo book are interesting, but they don't really go to the core of conservatism, and in some ways may actually affirm our scepticism about the value of governmental programs in general.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | October 17, 2006 4:18 PM
As a Christian male of African heritage who grew up in a so-called "Third World Country" and who has also travelled to various parts of the world, including Africa and Central America, I am somewhat perturbed by the patronizing, simplistic and potentially "racist" attitude I have come to notice in this overall discussion - that those who have or may receive services from faith-based initiatives in underdeveloped countries may automatically be "cajoled or fooled" into accepting Christianity in exchange for services. Believe it or not, people in underdeveloped countries (brown and black people) have highly developed beliefs and values that may not be so easily "bought" as those of us/you in Western culture (white people) may like to (or are conditioned to) believe.
Once again I see poor people being used as "pawns" in political discourses and debates, by both the so-called religious right and left in America to prove their "rightness"!>
Posted by: Asabagna | October 17, 2006 4:30 PM
What's bizarre about Wallis's and Sullivan's posts is that you'd think from reading them that social spending has been cut enormously under Bush's watch. In fact, as this USA Today article states, "Spending on social programs, from education to veterans health care, has risen faster than at any time since the 1960s." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending_x.htm
But, I guess that fact severely undercuts all the righteous indignation being felt here.
Your thoughts?>
Posted by: jessie | October 17, 2006 5:07 PM
Jessie,
The criticism being leveled is primarily that this specific program was used to gain support from Christians and then after the polls closed was dropped like a bad habit. Even is Bush were FDR reincarnate this should still be a legitimate concern, shouldn't it?>
Posted by: Daniel | October 17, 2006 5:15 PM
Wolverine,
Given Jessie's argument above, that Bush took promised money away from organic charity and community solutions and gave it to federal megaprograms, does that mean the President is not a conservative?>
Posted by: Daniel | October 17, 2006 5:16 PM
Daniel,
On this point at least, he certainly let down his conservative supporters.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | October 17, 2006 5:30 PM
Jessie,
I'm still trying to understand. Let me tell you what I hear you saying and you confirm or correct me:
Liberals ought to be generally happy simply because money is being thrown at social problems.
Is this accurate?>
Posted by: Daniel | October 17, 2006 5:39 PM
Wolverine,
So, then, you oppose helping senior citzens get access to medications (the majority of the increase)?>
Posted by: Daniel | October 17, 2006 5:41 PM
The PROMISE of $8 billion for one project was thrown around like a tennis ball, back and forth, and then thrown into the corner somewhere to die. This fact pretty much ends all debate. I think you nay be wasting your time on here. Conservatives don't need a defense right now, they need moderate Democrat's on their side.>
Posted by: Frank | October 17, 2006 5:45 PM
Daniel,
No, I don't oppose helping senior get access to drugs. I did have concerns about making it a general entitlement.
The President had alternative proposals that would have focused the benefit more on poor seniors.
It seems a reasonable rule that government help for the poor should mostly go to the poor.
Wolverine>
Posted by: Wolverine | October 17, 2006 6:00 PM
Daniel,
I would say that, on domestic spending, Bush is definitely not a conservative. He's one of the most liberal presidents in US history. I wish he was as conservative as liberals make him out to be, actually.
Amy Sullivan said that Bush was lacking "compassion in action" and one of her last posts claimed that "social service spending is way down". Both claims: patently false.
I think the real message Republicans are probably getting from all of this is that no matter what you do to appease liberal advocates for the poor, they will never acknowledge the good in anything you do and will always find some reason to attack you. Increasing domestic spending won't really make anyone happy, and won't win you any votes or support. Hopefully the next Republican president will learn from Bush's appeasements and will work hard to control spending.>
Posted by: jessie | October 17, 2006 6:01 PM
Here's some other takes on Bush budgets
from 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/07/deep_cuts_sought_for_social_programs/?page=1
from 2005
By Patrick Martin
14 February 2004
The fiscal 2005 federal budget delivered by the Bush administration to Congress on February 2 combines a record deficit of $521 billion with record military spending and a virtual freeze on spending to meet domestic social needs. As one of Bush s editorial cheerleaders, the Wall Street Journal, observed approvingly, the budget emphatically chooses guns over butter, and demands that Congress follow suit.
*******
The budget for the Department of Defense is to soar from $375 billion for the current year to a record $401.7 billion, a rise of 7.1 percent. This includes a 3.5 percent increase in the base pay for military personnel twice the raise proposed for civilian federal workers and huge outlays for new weapons and equipment. Tens of billions will flow into the coffers of major arms contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics to pay for 42 new F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, 24 F-22 Raptors, 14 C-17 heavy transport planes and nine new Navy ships.
*******
An easy way to see where we're spending our money is a budget graph on the Friends Comittee on National Legislation website http://www.fcnl.org/budget/
We are now spending 42 % of our budget on military spending and possibly quite a bit more if you count the un accaounted for CIA and NSA budget.Included are professioonal torturers and large numbers of mercenaries.
***********
If someone in your neigborhood spent half his money on guns and other weapons, put up a barbed wire fence along his southern border and then proclaimed himself the greatest person in the neighborhood who wanted to bring freedom to the rest of the neighborhood would you agree with him and look forward to his arrival at your house?>
Posted by: Joseph | October 17, 2006 6:11 PM
I agree with Asabagna to a point. I wouldn't call it "racisim" as such but rather ignoracence and ethnocentrism. I've done mission work in Africa and Central America and the term I used was "paternalism". "We need to look out for these poor ignorant lost souls." was a disturbing but predominant attitude of churches and races in the US. This is also the attitude our government continues to show in its foreign policy especially the mess in Iraq.>
Posted by: Jon | October 17, 2006 6:16 PM
It seems a reasonable rule that government help for the poor should mostly go to the poor.
Hear, hear!>
Posted by: Daniel | October 17, 2006 6:20 PM
I think the real message Republicans are probably getting from all of this is that no matter what you do to appease liberal advocates for the poor, they will never acknowledge the good in anything you do and will always find some reason to attack you.
I agree. My hope is that liberals will start celebrating the good as well as being concerned about the bad. Note, though, that there is a plank-in-eye problem in that Clinton has never done anything right for most conservatives.
I value reality and think we should provide the context for people to change their minds. One fear I have, for example, is that some people are still pro-choice because turning pro-life would be to admit they have greenlighting mass murder. I think it's in our best interest to make it easier for these people to change their minds rather than wait in the wings with stones to throw.
As for me, I was aware social spending was up. I just have a problem with the way a lot of that spending is taking place. Not to be characteristic of your comment above, I'll try and provide a specific example here.
The EPA. Spending increased at the EPA from 2001 to 2005. It did not keep up with inflation for that time period and next year is being cut back to 1998 levels, but the spending did increase for the time period I mentioned. During that time, the administration gutted several key environmental protections and shelved enforcement of others. The primary measures demanded dirtier skies, dirtier water, fewer trees, and fewer species. So, we spent more but got less in return.>
Posted by: Daniel | October 17, 2006 6:33 PM
"Given Jessie's argument above, that Bush took promised money away from organic charity and community solutions and gave it to federal megaprograms, does that mean the President is not a conservative?"
Yes.>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 17, 2006 6:58 PM
"Note, though, that there is a plank-in-eye problem in that Clinton has never done anything right for most conservatives."
Many have give Clinton credit for his support of the welfare reform bill, among other things. I think, also, that Clinton-hatred was fueled by his extra-curricular activities, over which he did have some measure of control.>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 17, 2006 7:02 PM
"...I am somewhat perturbed by the patronizing, simplistic and potentially "racist" attitude I have come to notice in this overall discussion - that those who have or may receive services from faith-based initiatives in underdeveloped countries may automatically be "cajoled or fooled" into accepting Christianity in exchange for services...".
I admit that I was surprised that some of what had been said here on this blog appears to (or perhaps does) say that persons in Africa are unwittingly accepting Christianity in order to obtain supplies.
My impression is that, if supplies are being provided upon condition that persons in Africa particpate in religious observances of some sort, then persons who are hungry are exhibiting logic by complying with the condition which must be accepted in order to obtain the supplies they need... and my opinion is that such conditions should not be being placed upon them, for receipt of supplies or services, from the US.
But, I do not know the specifics.
Thanks to Asabagna... and it is wonderful that we have the opportunity to communicate about this... with you, and your insight.
So many persons I know here are disturbed to realize that so much of our world has so little.
Some of us are aware that extreme poverty might be solvable... in a decade or so... if the wealthy west could realize that it might be possible.
Some personalities help raise that level of awareness, here.
Some persons in our society express concerns that assistance from the west might not reach the intended target... that militias in some areas control the flow of money and supplies, and that good intentions will be thwarted, with militias gaining control of money and supplies.
And, it is my observation that a substantial part of contributions to charity, in the US, are to churches, and that a substantial part of that goes to the construction, repair, maintenance, and utilties costs, of buildings, much of which is used one day a week, and that could be shared, if our society could shift away from the traditional practice that has occurred, for centuries, in western societies.
Asabagna, do you have other ideas about support for persons in poverty in Africa, that you could share with us?
What can you tell us, that would help us see. For example, I heard a presentation by a college student who had volunteered in Africa last summer or the year before. He told of the father who needed $3 to purchase medications for treatment of malaria for his daughter, and how the father was unable to arrange for the money, on his own...the students paid for the medication, for the father, but the student acknowledged that they could not do that, every time it might occur.
It helps us see how different life must be, for persons who are so very, very poor.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 17, 2006 7:29 PM
Asabagna,
I apologize... I just now reread yor post... I had mistakenly concluded that you wre writing to us, from Africa.
Everyone, please excuse my misread!>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 17, 2006 7:32 PM
Amy Sullivan writes that the invasion of Iraq was not necessarily a bad idea. That seems to have been overlooked in the comments thus far.
I have long been concerned about great ambiguities in Sojourners' position on the major life issues of war and abortion. This is just another indication that there is no agreement on those issues within the organization. In fact, often it seems as there is no agreement on them within individual minds of leaders of the organization.>
Posted by: Bill Samuel | October 17, 2006 7:44 PM
As I understand it, Sojourners as a whole is opposed to war in all but the most dire of situations and believed that alternatives had not been exhausted prior to Iraq. I'm not sure that Amy Sullivan, Brian McLaren, et al should be equated with Sojourners....>
Posted by: Daniel | October 17, 2006 8:00 PM
Daniel,
McLaren is a member of the Sojo board. I think Amy Sullivan is Beliefnet, but the two have merged, so i don't know how to delineate that.>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 17, 2006 9:02 PM
THIS SITES HATE FOR THOSE THAT CLIAM CHRIST IS FRUIT THAT IS TELLING; THE GARBAGE AND HATE IS MORE IN LINE W/ FACISM THAN BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY. DARKNESS LOVES DARKNESS.
YOU PEOPLE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE POOR, IT IS ABOUT POLITICS AND SELF PRIDE IN BELIEVING WHAT THE FLESH DESIRES. SHAMEFUL, BUT THE LORD WILL AVENGE.>
Posted by: World View | October 17, 2006 9:21 PM
God bless you.>
Posted by: Daniel | October 17, 2006 10:43 PM
Worldview,
I think you got carried away with your shift-key of righteousness there, buddy.>
Posted by: kevin s. | October 17, 2006 11:51 PM
World View,
Your hate-filled diatribe does not impress nor does it persuade anyone to think differently.
If you had a legitimate counter-argument in response to even the most simple claims forwarded by Amy Sullivan, I wonder why you fail to present it?
Come back when you've dispensed with your Trolling and are prepared to join the dialogue.>
Posted by: Tenoch | October 18, 2006 12:04 AM
"I have long been concerned about great ambiguities in Sojourners' position on the major life issues of war and abortion. This is just another indication that there is no agreement on those issues within the organization. In fact, often it seems as there is no agreement on them within individual minds of leaders of the organization."
Bill,
I think that there are differences among us all, because we all have differing experiences in life, which lead us to regard issues differently than others do.
Perhaps you regard some matters to be determined by an absolute truth, and the absence of that, among the writers on the blog, is what concerns you?
I'm not sure, and that's why I ask.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 18, 2006 1:28 AM
Mike,
I'm grateful for your post above because I realize how tough it is to listen in this format.>
Posted by: Daniel | October 18, 2006 4:02 PM
Many people of moderate (liberal?) faiths have reconciled their faith with ambiguity and uncertainty. Most Fundamentalist/literalists have not. Theirs is a world of black and white. Grey causes them an angst that is unbearable, so they look for quick and easy answers and panaceas. This plays right into the theology of individual salvation and immortality. ("If we can just make it through this life, then...well...then we won't have to worry anymore! Soon God will send a rescue squad from the sky to hustle us believers from this sorry planet!) Let's face it. It's tough living in the here and now with communication showing us instantly all the travails of the world. It wears on us in ways we can't possibly know. But Jesus was a here and now guy. He wasn't the answer guy...he was the question guy, following true rabbinical form. He isn't coming again...he's present with us now! We await the fullness of God's presence, but we are who the "least of these" await now.>
Posted by: KevinK | October 19, 2006 1:41 AM
"Many people of moderate (liberal?) faiths have reconciled their faith with ambiguity and uncertainty. Most Fundamentalist/literalists have not. Theirs is a world of black and white. Grey causes them an angst that is unbearable, so they look for quick and easy answers and panaceas."
KevinK,
I wonder if absolute knowledge, including "absolute divine knowledge" (to borrow a term from Joseph on the later blog topic "The Real Danger of Religion") might be a descriptor for the certainty that arises in the views of conservatives, be they believers or non-belivers.>
Posted by: Mike Hayes 2 | October 19, 2006 2:55 AM
I just read Amy's piece and it reinforces my well-founded Baptist belief that the faith-based initiative was a bad idea from the very beginning and it would inherently become tainted with politics. The Boston Globe ran an interesting and detailed series of articles last week on how this was being exploited for foreign policy purposes. Some people who disagreed with me when I criticized the idea when first announced hae come to see I was right all along.>
Posted by: Deadeye Dick | October 19, 2006 4:53 PM
The fact that faith-based organizations are much more effective than government in assisting with local social and daily needs was not discovered by the Bush administration. Rather, the Clinton administration did a study of organizations that provided treatment, counseling and assistance to see which could do the best job in order to allocate the human services portion of the federal budget to the most effective place; his administration found faith-based organizations to provide the best service by far, and to be the most responsible in spending money given it for humanitarian purposes. Rather than try to buy a few votes with this in 1996 and for Gore in 2000, he announced that faith-based organizations could apply for federal funding if they followed certain federal affirmative action guidelines, and no one had a problem. If anything, Bush is doing a worse job than the predecessor he likes to bash and blame.>
Posted by: Bernadette | October 19, 2006 9:11 PM
Deadeye Dick: I have been a supporter of Sojourners (through prayer and giving), a pacifist, and a Democrat for most of my life, and I also am the Global Director of a Food for the Hungry project that probably would not have been funded were it not for the faith-based initiative: an $8.2 million PEPFAR AIDS prevention grant for Haiti, Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Nigeria. It's sometimes hard for NGOs to compete against the beltway bandits without some support from within an agency. Let me tell you what most of you already know: Despite God's love for the Church, it is often a pain to work through the Church. We plan to reach about 1.4 million youth, advocating for abstinence before marriage, but also talking about condoms for those who do not choose to be abstinent. We will also reach about 244,000 adults, promoting faithfulness in relationships, but also talking about condoms with those who do not choose marital fidelity. We base our strategy on the scientific literature (see www.ccih.org). We have spent a lot of time talking with our partners and with staff and volunteers all the way to the community level about the Do's and Don'ts concerning government funding -- but in a limited number of places and times, we find that they have a really hard time of separating out their faith and work into nice, neat and totally air-tight separate categories -- especially folks who are volunteers. For example, since most meetings in Kenya start with prayer, including government meetings, some people ask why they cannot start their meetings with prayer. I agree with Asabagna's comments. I was practically nauseas at the International AIDS Conference in Toronto this year when I heard people talking about how Africans are so powerless to do anything to stop the AIDS epidemic due to their poverty. We should be looking at the case of Uganda where AIDS has dramatically decreased with the homegrown ABC strategy, and get behind what Africans have already found works. Faith-based organizations , employing both expatriate and national staff, have been and will continue to be major players in the health care systems in many developing countries. In some countries, they deliver 40% of the health care there. Having a mechanism to assure that they are not shut-out of funding opportunities is a very positive move, regardless of what you think of Bush. As they say in Haiti, "Rayi chen, men di dan li blanch." [Hate the dog, but say his teeth are white.] If we just give in to the polarization of political ideas, loving whatever our party's administration does, and hating anything that the other side does, how can we ever make decisions that will help and empower the poor? See Joshua 5:13-14: Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you for us or for our enemies?" "Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, "What message does my Lord have for his servant?">
Posted by: Tom Davis | October 19, 2006 9:29 PM
I am dissappointed to see the consistent bias of Sojourners, and the eagerness with which Jim Wallis and associates condemn other Christians. I would be pleased to read a thoughtful response to current events.
Our local newspaper publishes the columns of both Molly Ivins and Cal Thomas. Their positions are so predictable that there is no point in reading either's commentaries.
Sojo is becoming much the same. I rarely bother opening the e-mails I receive because I already know what they will say.
I have also decided to stop supporting Sojo financially. I largely share the same viewpoint, but I am put off by the diatribe. At one time this group provided a welcome counterpoint, but that's not often true anymore.>
Posted by: DeanB | October 20, 2006 6:12 AM
"Poverty just doesn't get the blood racing like abortion or gay marriage." Probably true, Amy. Maybe it's because poverty is a wrong that can't be outlawed. We can eliminate systemic occurences of discrimination and injustice, but we can't eliminate choices to be lazy, alcoholic, uneducated, insane, and so forth. And that's just in the U.S.! What do we do about all of the dictators in the world who control their peoples through deprivation? I personally can't get excited about the gay marriage issue; I believe in the biblical creation myth, but I'm glad if two homosexual people who have not committed themselves to that myth can find some happiness together. Now, abortion. It's easy to see how that gets the blood racing. Last time I checked, we were up to 45,000,000+ abortions in our post Roe v. Wade paradise. Since the preborn are the weakest, most voiceless people in our society, the injustice stuns the sensibilities. Yes, that gets my blood pumping. If one were to suggest that Christians should be more upset about poverty than abortion in 2006, that would be like saying they should have been more concerned about poverty than slavery in 1860. (If they had been, we would have still had the poor years later, AS WELL AS slaves.)>
Posted by: Jonathan | October 22, 2006 7:08 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?