Losing the Faith

Losing the Faith

October 13, 2006

"More than five years after President Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives," David Kuo, the former special assistant to President Bush on faith-based issues, is "going public with an insider's tell-all account that portrays an office used almost exclusively to win political points." Kuo is a "self-described conservative Christian" who has worked with former Sen. Jack Kemp (R-NY), Bill Bennett, and John Ashcroft. In his book Tempting Faith, Kuo accuses Karl Rove and others in the Bush administration of "cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain," ignoring issues such as poverty, and limiting faith-based grants to organizations that are "politically friendly to the administration." Both Kuo's new book and the Foley scandal present progressives with an opportunity to show that "conservatives do not have a monopoly" on "family values."

• Kuo is not the first insider to criticize the faith-based program. Kuo has criticized the administration's handling of faith-based programs before. In 2005, Kuo described the "minimal senior White House commitment to the faith-based agenda" during his time in the administration. Kuo bemoaned the lack of focus on poverty. "[The White House] never really wanted the 'poor people stuff,'" he wrote. John DiIulio, the head of the faith-based program until August 2001, also spoke out against the administration's penchant for politics over policy. "What you’ve got is everything - and I mean everything - being run by the political arm," DiIulio said. "It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis." DiIulio, like Kuo, is no friend of the left." During the Clinton impeachment drama, he beat the drum for Clinton's removal from office and decried the failure to do so as a signal of the 'paganization' of American political culture."
  
  
• The administration has been using evangelicals for political gain. In his book, Kuo says officials in Karl Rove's office "knew 'the nuts' were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness." Staff members complained "politically involved Christians were 'annoying,' 'tiresome' or 'boorish.'" "National Christian leaders," Kuo writes, "received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous' and 'out of control.'" According to Kuo, White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman "knowingly participated in a scheme to use the [faith-based] office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly nonpartisan events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races." "[I]t can't come from the campaigns," Mehlman said. "That would make it look too political. It needs to come from the congressional offices. We'll take care of that by having our guys call the office [of faith-based initiatives] to request the visit."
  
  

• Religious progressives are speaking with a stronger voice. Groups such as Faith in Public Life are working to give religious progressives—a group nearly as large as religious conservatives—a stronger voice. The debate is already shifting away from "hot button" issues and towards policies that "strengthen the common good and respect the basic dignity of all people." A recent Center for American Progress poll showed "moral issues people worried about most in their daily lives were very different from the ones dominating political debate." Twenty-eight percent of those polled thought the most serious moral crisis in America today is "kids not raised with the right values," with only three percent citing "abortion and homosexuality." Eighty-nine percent agreed the government should "take greater steps to help the poor and disadvantaged in America." The debate is shifting away from "hot-button" issues as religious leaders embrace progressive causes such as protecting the environment and raising the minimum wage.