Faith-Based Fracas
A discussion continued.

By Kate O'Beirne & Ramesh Ponnuru
May 15, 2001 9:45 a.m.

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.