Why “compassionate conservatism” isn’t

Last updated on: August 26, 2011 at 1:50 pm by Roger E. Olson

Why “compassionate conservatism” isn’t 2011-08-26T13:50:41-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Some years ago the phrase “compassionate conservatism” became popular. I believe candidate George Bush used it to describe his program for helping the poor. I got to know one of its main exponents and defenders–Marvin Olasky. He was for a while a professor at the University of Texas and I used to take classes there to meet with him after they read one of his books. (I had them read either Renewing American Compassion or Compassionate Conservatism. Olasky disavowed any claim to having coined the phrase, but I have often heard its genesis attributed to him. He certainly was and still is a passionate defender of the approach to poverty expressed by that phrase.)

So what is “compassionate conservatism” and why isn’t it (compassionate)? First, let me clarify what I mean by “it isn’t.” I certainly DON’T mean that its advocates aren’t compassionate people. I know Olasky well enough to know he is compassionate. Over the years he has housed and fed numerous people and helped them find work and become independent contributors to society. That’s all to his credit and to the credit of many conservative Christians (and others) who truly believe what they call compassionate conservatism is better for the poor than government welfare and entitlement programs.

Olasky’s compassionate conservatism, however, is, in my opinion, not compassionate in its effects. When I say “not compassionate” I’m not talking about peoples’ feelings or motives but about the effects of an approach to public policy. My thesis is that compassionate conservatism will not help the poor on any massive scale and, to the extent it is implemented as government policy, will hurt the most deserving of the most needy people in America.

So here’s my brief summary of compassionate conservatism as outlined by Olasky in his books and in his talks with my students. (I now have my students reading Michael Novak’s The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism and that seems to be consistent with Olasky’s compassionate conservatism.)

Compassionate conservatism is the goal of removing from government the task of helping the poor and turning that over entirely to privately run, non-profit organizations including especially churches and religious humanitarian groups. Olasky, anyway, does not think this can happen suddenly, but he advocates a gradual, but steady, process at the end of which the government is not at all directly involved in helping the needy. Rather, the government will (in Olasky’s compassionate conservatism) give tax CREDITS (not tax deductions) for contributions to accredited poverty relief agencies that help poor people get out of poverty, drug addicts get off drugs, etc.

In other words, under compassionate conservatism, if a person donates $10,000 to an accredited non-profit group relief group that has a proven track record of helping the poor (Olasky’s books abound with descriptions of them), his or her tax burden would be decreased by that amount. Of course, there would have to be limits to this so that the federal government and state governments could continue to function. For example, the military would still have to be funded. But government would be greatly reduced so that giving tax credits for charitable contributions would not “starve the beast” to death. (Of course, “starving the beast” is one way of achieving the goal of reducing government, but Olasky isn’t an anarchist. He believes government has a role; it just isn’t directly helping the poor.)

One reason for this policy, according to CCs, is to encourage direct, hands-on work with the poor. The government’s massive entitlement programs tend to discourage individuals and churches (for example) from getting directly involved with the poor. If the government steps aside, Olasky believes, churches will rush in to fill the gap using the greatly increased contributions people will give partly, at least, because giving will reduce their tax burden.

Another reason, according to Olasky and other advocates of CC, is that government bureaucrats should not be deciding who gets government aid; churches and charities should because they are local and better equipped to judge who is worthy and who isn’t. They also will be more likely to hold the recipients of their charitable endeavors accountable.

Well, Olasky has many other reasons for CC. These are just two of the main ones.

CC, as defined and described by Olasky (and Novak who doesn’t use that phrase), sounds good on the surface. But we need to look below the surface to what it would actually do and not do.

First, I’m not convinced that ANY private organization can take on SOME of the things government does. For example, government (usually states with federal funds) provides unbelievably expensive medicines for HIV positive children to keep them from developing AIDS. COULD any private charitable organization replace what the government does for children–not only with HIV but other diseases and disabilities? The costs of these programs are beyond what any private organization can reliably meet. Simply to “turn it over” to private charitable organizations increases the likelihood of children dying of diseases that can only be treated with meds (and other treatments) no charitable organization can afford to treat.

Second, what about populations nobody really cares about and that do not have the where with all to start up their own (what Olasky calls) “trampoline programs?” (A trampline program is a privately funded organization’s effort to help people help themselves out of poverty.) I strongly suspect that MOST people give charitably to organizations that help people with whom they have some affinity or at least about whom they care. THERE ARE groups in the U.S. about whom virtually nobody cares. The point of an entitlement program is that its aid cannot be withheld from persons who meet the criteria on account of their anything (race, ethnicity, culture, gender, religion, affiliations, etc.). A government entitlement program cannot discriminate. It cannot say “We don’t like you, so go away. We won’t help you.” IF a person feels they are being discriminated against by administrators of such a program, they can go to court to force it to give them the aid they are entitled to (so long as they meet the financial citeria).

These are two of the reasons government got involved in welfare and entitlement programs to alleviate poverty and sickness. Private organizations simply could not accomplish what needed to be accomplished. That’s not to say government programs are a panacea; they have often failed. But the cure for their failure is not in abolishing them but in fixing them. Also, government got involved because private charitable organizations tended to help certain populations and ignore others. I grew up in a state with a large American Indian population. When I was a kid growing up in that state almost nobody cared about the plights of that population; they were considered hardly human. IF CC were ever to completely replace government aid programs, completely abolishing the welfare “safety net” (as Olasky urges), I’m afraid we would find ourselves in a similar situation to some third world countries where packs of small children live in underground sewer systems, under bridges, etc., and eventually become targets of death squads. (Some years ago–I don’t know if this is still happening or not–some South American countries had vigilante groups going around at night shooting homeless children as if they were rats.) Oh, sure, it’s easy to say “That would never happen here.” But how can you be so sure? Is it worth the risk? Are you certain that if government stepped aside and abolished the welfare safety net, turning all the tasks of helping the poor over to non-profit charitable groups, that all the truly deserving poor would still get the life-saving help they need? I doubt it.

Along with that, would these non-profit organizations (NGOs without government funding) attach strings to their help for the poor that require them to buy into an ideology or religious system in order to receive the aid? Olasky doesn’t see any problem with that. But let’s just suppose that the ONLY NGO offering life saving aid to a certain population in a certain city is run by a religious cult that requires people receiving life saving help to become involved in that cult’s worship. I don’t see how, under CC, that could be prevented.

I remember one time my class was meeting with Olasky in a room at the U of T. I asked him about The Church of Scientology across the street. (I’m not calling it a cult, by the way.) I asked him if he thought it would be okay, under his CC, for it to require people receiving its poverty aid to undergo auditing–its therapy that is based at least partly on belief in reincarnation. He said yes…

Closely related to this problem is another one. Olasky admits that there would have to be a government agency responsible for accrediting NGOs. The Church of Scientology would have to prove to that government agency its effectiveness in alleviating poverty or getting people off drugs, etc., in order to be accredited for the tax credit program. That is, in order for people who contribute to it to receive the tax credit, it would have to demonstrate to the government that its programs work.

But doesn’t that just introduce a whole new government bureaucracy? And how would its administrators decide what “works” means? Could they be completely objective in evaluating churches and other NGOs? And let’s say a certain religious NGO has a program that “works” (e.g., to get people off drugs) but requires, as a condition of their participation, that they participate in the group’s religious ceremonies. Would that be allowed? I think Olasky thinks that’s okay. Imagine the harm that would cause. First, many people would not be able to avail themselves of the program due to conscience. Second, that could encourage a particularly large and powerful religious group to mix proselytizing with its charitable work. That sounds fine to many people so long as we’re talking about THEIR religious group, but what if the ONLY group offering a life saving aid in a particular area is a cult or non-Christian religion?

I think it’s ironic that Olasky (and many promoters of CC) is a Calvinist. Calvinists, of course, believe in total depravity. But Olasky seems to trust wealthy people to be fair and equitable with their charitable contributions. Total depravity SEEMS to apply only to the poor. (If you doubt me on that, read his books! Then let’s talk about it.)

These are some of my reasons for believing that charity cannot replace government welfare programs. (I’m using “welfare” here in its broadest sense to apply to ALL government programs aimed at helping needy people. It’s not just food stamps and welfare checks.) IF you are going to object and argue against me about this, please address this question. IF the government does not provide life-saving meds to HIV-positive children (of which there are many thousands in the U.S.) who will? Do you have any idea how much those meds cost? Look it up first and then answer. This is just ONE government program that, under CC, would go to NGOs (without government funding).

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 24, 2011

Do we need an Arminian Defense League?

Next Post

August 26, 2011 Quick RIP for another hero: Mark Hatfield

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Four beasts rose from the sea—one like a lion with eagle's wings, one like a bear, one like a leopard, and a fourth terrifying beast. What did these represent?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Four kingdoms Four kings Four judgments Four ages