WASHINGTON Ð Judging by recent media coverage, President George W. Bush's faith-based group initiative has stalled in a storm of protests from religious organizations. But in the Washington think tanks that generate such programs and provide the intellectual firepower that resolves major policy disputes, a different story is heard.
Opponents of the controversial policy initiative, which would provide government funds to religious charities, are pleasantly surprised by the wave of public criticism that recently broke over the proposal. But many think-tankers of different ideological stripes believe that the president's proposal will make it through the sometimes choppy waters of Capitol Hill, although some changes will probably occur en route.
"I don't think it's going to stall at all," says Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "For one thing, they don't have to actually pass much legislation to do this, because it's already in existing law. I think the ignorance of the opponents of this is really quite profound."
However, Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute says that "the debate has really turned around on this, and it took everybody by surprise. When I came out against this, I figured it was pro forma; I was trying to just put it down. But I thought there wouldn't be any chance of [opposition] going forward."
Both proponents and opponents were surprised when prominent religious conservatives Ð most notably Christian Coalition President Pat Robertson Ð voiced skepticism and even outright opposition to the plan. Many in the administration anticipated opposition from civil liberties and secularist groups, but backlash from religious conservatives startled them.
Some feel this surprise may not have been merited. "Theologically, it makes sense for them to have some questions and concerns about this," says Amy Sullivan, editorial director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a group with close ties to the Washington-based, centrist Brookings Institution. Sullivan also points out that this is not the first paradoxical response from conservative Christians. "I think there were a lot of people who were surprised at the strength of the support from more conservative religious groups while it was still sort of in the talking stages," she said.
However, in addition to expected opposition from secular forces concerned about possible breaches of the separation of church and state, some religious conservatives have also registered concern over possible state intrusions into religion. They are also concerned about the specter of controversial groups receiving funding.
"If there is an important spiritual component, certainly cooperation with the government would require some regulation," says Sullivan, who holds a master's degree from Harvard Divinity School. "There are a lot of groups both on the right and the left in the religious community who don't want to be seen as compromising their main mission Ð which would be a spiritual mission above anything else."
Many think-tank experts decline to speculate on how the proposal should be revised or pared down. One prominent exception is Tanner, of Cato. "My advice would be to pull the plug," he says.
The libertarian Tanner is willing to go along with tax incentives included in the policy proposal, but vehemently opposes any expansion of direct government aid.
"I always knew there would be a certain amount of skepticism on the left, on the basic separation of church and state grounds. What took everybody by surprise was the way the religious right itself would be opposed to this," says Tanner. "I think it was a case of them not really having thought this through."
Initially, says Tanner, the proposal had an instinctive appeal to many citizens. Indeed, Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore endorsed a version of support for faith-base initiatives last year. "But if you try to write the details, and make it actually work, you can't make everybody happy," he says. "It's like putting a square peg in a round hole. You end up with a situation where you give money to religious groups with instructions not to be religious. That doesn't make anybody happy."
Other think-tank scholars, however, dispute this. Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, says that religious opposition to the Bush proposal is overblown. "There seem to be only about five or six people and it isn't clear Pat Robertson represents a constituency anymore," he says.
John Dilulio, the political scientist who heads the White House office for faith-based initiatives, and Don Eberly, his deputy, should "quit worrying about their critics and move forward," says Cromartie.
Some think that Dilulio has been too soft-spoken. One conservative scholar who declines to be named says that Dilulio "tried to take it too far to the left and make it sound too unmenacing, so he had a lot of conservatives say 'what's the point of this?' " Some conservatives mistakenly thought that Dilulio was saying that federal money could not be used for religious instruction, this scholar adds.
But for the most part, Washington think-tank experts praise Dilulio. "There's a strong temptation for me to say, as long as John Dilulio's for it, it's probably OK," laughs Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute. "But I won't go that extra mile."
"John is terrific," says Murray, in a comment echoed by other think-tankers. "What you see is what you get, in terms of his own religious faith, and he's as smart as can be and has lots of integrity."
But even Murray, a self-proclaimed libertarian, has mixed feelings about federal support for faith-based initiatives. "I absolutely agree with the power of faith-based initiatives to get things done, things that social services just can't do. That's an indispensable element," he says.
Yet he worries about the federal influence. "I think that federal money is inherently corrupting of social services." However, he believes that ways can be found to diminish the danger of government control. "I think there are ways to promote faith-based initiatives," he says. "But don't let them suck on the federal teat."
Much of the concern of religious conservatives is pointless, says Rector of the Heritage Foundation. Robertson has warned that para-religious groups like the racist, extreme-right-wing Aryan Nation could qualify for federal money under the Bush proposal. Rector says this is "a non-issue that's been blown out of proportion." He says that groups he finds offensive, which have secular purposes, are already eligible for government grants. He is much more concerned about all the secular groups "that get money and are viciously anti-marriage and viciously anti-religious and viciously anti-everything."
Rector says that language used in earlier legislation Ð similar to the language used in Bush's initiative Ð makes secular concerns about government support for faith-based initiatives irrelevant. "We've had this type of language in the child care bloc grant for a decade now and the Aryan Nation has yet to get a single voucher."
Instead, he says, "the real issue is that I think this could be oversold. It's important that faith-based groups do what they do well, which is molding human character and changing human souls."
This means, he adds, that faith-based initiatives should focus on areas where they have proven successful, such as drug treatment and counseling for spousal abuse, instead of trying to duplicate government food programs.
"We're really talking about a choice-based system," says Rector. "I think the White House hasn't done well in announcing that. What we're really talking about is offering clients a choice of providers Ð including, if they wish, a faith-based provider.
"Once that becomes clear, then who is the liberal here? Who is favoring pluralism? It's not on the left."
And some policy experts think that partisan political considerations should be bypassed. While Washington insiders "try to work around their constituencies," Cromartie notes, "people should not forget that there are real people and real lives at stake here."
One alternative that has gained favor with some religious conservatives is substituting vouchers for federal grants given to organizations. Vouchers given directly to individuals would allow these recipients to, in effect, shop around for a program that best suits them.
Douglas Koopman, a political scientist at Michigan's Calvin College, wrote in an essay last year that if federal money goes directly to faith-based groups, the faith-based institutions "may start to limit the type of clients they work with to meet the new demands that come with federal money."
Koopman argued that vouchers, which candidate Bush appeared to support, offered more freedom for faith-based institutions to hold on to their unique religious identities.
Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
Design copyright Scars Publications and Design. Copyright of individual pieces remain with the author. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
