|
 wo
weeks ago, we wrote an op-ed in the Wall
Street Journal criticizing one part of President Bush's
faith-based
initiative:
the part called "charitable choice," which opens up federal
programs to small, often faith-based groups and would thus result
in direct federal grants to them. The problem with this policy,
we argued, is not that it would violate the Constitution (as some
liberals claim) or that it would let unpopular groups get taxpayer
dollars (as some conservatives have objected). It is, rather, that
over time this policy would lead the recipient groups to an unhealthy
and enervating dependence on the federal government.
Our arguments
have not persuaded John DiIulio, the head of the initiative, or
J. C. Watts, the author of a bill in the House to extend the approach
we criticized. Our op-ed prompted both men to write letters to the
Journal. DiIulio and Watts are busy men, each juggling dozens
of balls a day, and they deserve credit for taking the time to respond
to our concerns without, for the most part, resorting to cheap shots
or ad hominem attacks. But it must also be said that neither man
has really answered the objections we raised.
1. DiIulio
writes that we ignored the fact that charitable choice has existed
since 1996 and has not in fact undermined the charities participating
in it. But our op-ed noted that increasing dependency on the government
was likely to grow over time. And DiIulio's own letter notes that
the Clinton administration had "neglected to implement [charitable
choice] with any gusto." In which case one wouldn't expect
our warnings to have come true yet, right?
2. Watts argues
that we needn't worry because "[t]he government will not be
forcing faith-based groups to accept taxpayer dollars." This
is an argument that our op-ed pre-emptively answered: "It is
no good to say that charities that fear dependency do not have to
participate. Nobody has to collect welfare either, but people become
dependent on it nonetheless." We added that it would be particularly
difficult for church groups to turn down the money when other such
groups were expanding their programs by taking it.
3. DiIulio
makes a related argument: "The view expressed by Ms. O'Beirne
and Mr. Ponnuru patronizes people who lead faith-based organizations."
If it's patronizing to suggest that people often underestimate the
risks involved in partnerships with the federal government, then
we'll plead guilty. But our point doesn't have to do with whether
individual Samaritans will make good decisions in this matter. It
might very well have made sense for individual farmers to sign up
for federal aid even though eventually it tied them up in regulatory
knots. That doesn't mean it was a good idea for the federal government
to make that aid available in the first place.
4. Watts writes
that our argument is "hauntingly similar to the logic voiced
by ACLU-types against religion having any place in the public square."
Really? How so? Watts doesn't elaborate. For the record, we dismissed
"left-wing secularist critics" of the initiative in the
op-ed.
5. Watts says
that poverty "is not going to go away on its own." DiIulio
writes, "It is not fair to praise [charities'] unheralded good
works in one breath and tell them to go on making bricks without
straw in the next." It is typical of liberals to assume that
if one opposes governmental aid for some worthy purpose one is against
doing anything at all to promote that purpose. It is disappointing
to see Watts and DiIulio fall for the same fallacy — especially
since our op-ed explicitly favored the lifting of regulatory obstacles
to charities and the encouragement of donations to them through
tax breaks.
If Watts and
DiIulio's arguments are weak, their silence on one point is quite
impressive. Our op-ed made one wholly new argument: that charitable
choice could work to the systematic disadvantage of the Catholic
Church: "[F]ederal grants will affect which churches grow and
which shrink. Churches that get grants will be able to provide more
services than those that do not, and it is not unknown for people
to join churches that gave them job training, counseling or a preschool.
Do we really want federal funding to affect America's religious
dynamics in this manner? It will be a particular problem for the
Catholic Church. The church supports charity generously. But Catholics'
charitable work tends to be institutionally separate from their
parish churches, which are more concerned with the sacraments than
with social services. Unless the church restructures itself, it
will be disadvantaged by grants to local churches."
Neither Watts
nor DiIulio provides any answer to this objection, or even attempts
to do so. And they had over 900 words between them to make their
case.
|
