|
 e've
defended John DiIulio, head of President Bush's office on faith-based
charities, from unfair criticisms before.
But it must be said that in his speech to the National Association
of Evangelicals yesterday, DiIulio displayed the unattractive side
of "compassionate conservatism": namely, the hectoring moralism
to which it lends itself. Responding to conservative Christian leaders
who have expressed concern that participation in government programs
might corrupt church-run groups, DiIulio remarked, "In all truth
and grace, and speaking now only for myself and as a fellow Christian,
I would call upon the National Association of Evangelicals to (as
we say on the inner-city streets) get real — and get affiliated
church leaders to get real — about helping the poor, the sick,
the imprisoned, and others among the least of these…. It's
fine to fret about 'hijacked faith,' but to many brothers and sisters
who are desperately ministering to those needs of those who the
rest of us in this prosperous society have left behind, such frets
would persuade more and rankle less if they were backed by real
human and financial help…. 'Hijacked faith' can take many forms,
few more harmful than the self-hijack that honors the poor in 'word
or speech' alone, if that."
One need not have exquisitely sensitive church-state antennae to
wonder if a government official ought to be lecturing churches about
what they ought to be doing — and while DiIulio may describe
himself as speaking only for himself and as a Christian, the NAE
didn't invite him to speak in that capacity. Besides, the question
of what long-run impact public-policy changes will have on the health
of America's civil society is not an intramural dispute among conservative
Christians anyway. It's a question that people of different faiths
or no faith can take up, and the duties entailed by faith are not
the only considerations that matter in answering it. Support for
the president's faith-based initiative — at least that part
of it that requires discretionary grants to religious charities,
as opposed to its indirect tax credits and deregulation — is
waning on the Right. DiIulio's speech yesterday will not do anything
to stop it from waning.
Flipping the Byrd
Roll Call reports today that liberal Democrats in the House,
and especially members of the black caucus, are upset with Senate
Democrats for not coming down harder on Robert Byrd for using the
n-word on national television. Mississipi Democrat Bennie Thompson,
for example, said, "I'm sure they will downplay the statement. But
I'm also sure none of those senators are black." Thompson added
that black caucus members would be looking carefully at Byrd's votes.
Will Byrd now rethink his earlier comment about supporting conservative
judicial nominees?
Byrd could become a bigger headache for the Democrats if they get
their wish — expressed more and more openly — and Republican
senator Strom Thurmond passes away. If he's replaced by a Democrat,
the Democrats would control the Senate. But even if he isn't, the
president pro tem of the Senate would be…Robert Byrd.
Tepid Tax Talk
Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council, tells
Don Lambro in today's Washington Times, "I wish in the first
year we could have had a bigger tax cut." Asked if the tax cuts
will rescue the economy, he responds, "I don't have an opinion.
I think they could help."
|
