Compassionate centrism

[question everything]

Compassionate centrism
Oct 11th 2007
From The Economist print edition

There's still life in the “faith agenda”

THE lone Democrat in the White House did not have an easy time as the president's “faith tsar”, back in 2001. John DiIulio was appalled by the lack of a serious “policy apparatus”. He later complained that the White House was run by “Mayberry Machiavellis” who sacrificed everything for political gain. He quit after only seven months.

Yet today, happily ensconced in the University of Pennsylvania, Mr DiIulio has lost none of his enthusiasm for faith-based solutions to America's social problems. He has just published a new book, “Godly Republic: A Centrist Blueprint for America's Faith-Based Future” (University of California Press). He can talk eloquently for hours on the case for extending a helping hand to religious organisations. Particularly exciting, for him, is the idea that a Democratic administration could reinvigorate his faith-based policies and return them to their bipartisan roots.

Mr DiIulio is the ideal salesman for faith-based social services. He is one of America's leading political scientists — a man who has all the latest data at his fingertips, but who also knows his “Federalist Papers” and his de Tocqueville. In a world where people like to talk about Jesus changing their hearts, he presents the case for “faith” in scrupulously secular terms. He is also one of those rare things in professional America — a working-class boy made good who nevertheless clings on to his roots.

(snip)

In his new book Mr DiIulio argues vigorously that there is no constitutional problem with giving public money to religious organisations — provided the rules are written tightly and monitored carefully. The Founding Fathers did not intend to banish religion from the public square any more than they intended to create a Christian nation. And much of America's government work is currently subcontracted to “proxy institutions”. If religious proxy institutions can do the job effectively, then there is no reason to discriminate against them. This is the sort of argument that infuriates the Democratic Party's powerful secular wing. Nevertheless, Mr DiIulio hopes that a future Democratic president will prefer pragmatism to what he regards as misguided ideology. The origins of the faith-based idea were bipartisan.

The Clinton administration endorsed “charitable choice” (which let religious organisations compete on a level playing field) in his second term. Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton's second secretary of housing, established the first “faith centre” in the federal government. Mr DiIulio advised both Al Gore and Mr Bush. Two-thirds of American states have now enacted “faith-friendly” laws. Mr Gore's enthusiasm for “faith” is shared by all the leading Democratic candidates. Hillary Clinton in particular has gone out of her way to emphasise her support for faith-based social services. In January 2005 she told a group of pastors in Boston that people who see “God's work in the lives of even the most hopeless and left behind” are most likely to “go out onto the street to save some poor, at-risk child.”

(snip)

http://economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=3856663&story_id=9947085

[ShortnFiery]

1. Too funny! "Compassionate centrism" brought to you by economist.com

Noting the above, I wonder exactly WHICH CLASS of people this illustrious new "Compassionate Centrism" will prove to serve? :thumbsdown:

Hint: It's not going to significantly benefit anyone who is not in The Investor Classes. ;)

[gateley]

2. Short'nFiery nails it! nt

[Selatius]

3. It opens a can of worms, imho.

If the feds gave grants to Christian organization to, for instance, alleviate poverty in inner-city areas, should they have a right to decide that homosexuals are not entitled to receive aid? Just what kind of regulation are we talking about with "written tightly and monitored carefully"?

[tech3149]

4. In an honest and informed world, Dilulio would be shamed into non-existence

I won't comment beyond that.

[lvx35]

5. I don't think the nature of any proxy institution matters as far as government aid.

Its just that the aid must be for non-religious activities, and it must be given without regard to the religious affiliation of the group. If a certain religious group is set up infrastructure-wise in Africa to deliver relief to a famine, I don't see any problem with the government using that group to deliver food aid if its most efficient, but the delivery of the food aid, the entire function served for the government, has to be separate from any religious activities.

[cleveramerican]

6. To deny that millions of american voters care about this stuff.....

is a HUGE tactical mistake for the dems. You'll notice the few who have a chance of winning will embrace it, cautiously.

[Echo In Light]

7. An organization that has to convince you...

Of its "compassion" is akin to how in America, we're constantly reminded of how it's a "free" country. If they have to sell you on the idea, forget it.